N c o ^ 



^oo^ 



c^ 



\ * - \ V 

V 



<\ 









N C , ^ 






W 



S^% 



x ^. 



V- 



^ ■% 



•- r> - 



^ ^ 



x <^. 



W 



".- 



> 
W 

















THE UNITY OF THE BOOK 

OF GENESIS 



IN UNIFORM BINDING 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE 
PENTATEUCH 

By WILLIAM HENRY GREEN, D.D., LL.D. 

Professor of Oriental and OJd Testament Literature ir> 

Princeton Theological Seminary 

8vo, $1.50 



THE UNITY OF THE BOOK 

OF GENESIS 



BY 



WILLIAM HE]S T EY GEEEN, D.D., LL.D. 

PROFESSOR OF ORIENTAL AND OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE IN PRINCETON 
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 




OlA, 



NEW YORK 

CHABLES SCRIBNEE'S SONS 
1895 



,0^ 



COPYRIGHT, 1895, BY 

CHAELES SCRIBNEE'S SONS 



TROW DIRECTORY 

PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING COMPANY 

NEW YORK 



PREFACE 

All tradition, from whatever source it is derived, 
whether inspired or uninspired, unanimously affirms that 
the first five books of the Bible were written by one man 
and that man was Moses. There is no counter-testimony 
in any quarter. From the predominant character of their 
contents these books are commonly called the Law. All 
the statutes contained in them are expressly declared to 
have been written by Moses or to have been given by the 
Lord to Moses. And if the entire law is his, the history, 
which is plainly preparatory for, or subsidiary to, the 
law, must be his likewise. 

The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch has, how- 
ever, been challenged in modern times in the name of 
the higher criticism on two distinct and independent 
grounds. One is that of the document hypothesis in its 
various forms and modifications, which occupies itself 
with the narrative portion of the Pentateuch, and on 
the ground of literary criteria claims that this is not the 
product of any one writer, but that it has been compiled 
from different documents, which are clearly distinguish- 
able in diction, style, conception, plan, and design, and 
which belong to widely separated ages. The other is 
that of the development hypothesis, which has attached 
itself to the preceding, but deals characteristically with a 
different portion of the Pentateuch and employs a differ- 
ent style of argument. Its field of operation is the laws, 
which it claims were not and could not have been given 
by Moses, nor at any one period in the history of Israel. 



VI PREFACE 

It professes to trace the growth of this legislation from 
simple and primitive forms to those which are more 
complex and which imply a later and more developed 
civilization. And it confidently affirms that these laws 
could not have been committed to writing in their pres- 
ent form for many centuries after the age of Moses. 

These hypotheses are discussed in a general way in my 
" Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch," where the fallacy 
and inconclusiveness of the reasoning by which they are 
defended and the falsity of the conclusions deduced from 
them are exposed. In order to a complete refutation of 
these hypotheses it is necessary to show still further by 
a detailed examination their inapplicability to, and in- 
compatibility with, the phenomena of the Pentateuch, 
and that, so far from solving the question of its origin, 
they are destitute of any real basis; they find no support 
in the Pentateuch itself, but are simply the creations of 
learned ingenuity and a lively imagination. 

The present treatise occupies itself exclusively with 
the document hypothesis, and aims to prove that the 
book of Genesis is not a compilation from different docu- 
ments, but is the continuous work of a single writer. 
The demonstration that this hypothesis has no foothold 
in Genesis effectually overturns it for the rest of the 
Pentateuch, or, if the critics please, the Hexateuch. It 
took its rise in Genesis ; the most plausible arguments 
in its favor are drawn from that book ; and the verdict 
rendered by that book substantially settles the case for 
those that follow. It is on the basis of the assumption 
that it is firmly established in Genesis that it is carried 
through the Hexateuch. If that assumption is proved 
to be false, the hypothesis collapses entirely. 

What is here proposed is a critical study of Genesis 
from beginning to end, chapter by chapter and section 
by section, The history of critical opinion is given in. 



PEEFACE vil 

full in the more important passages, and is throughout 
traced sufficiently to place before the reader the various 
views that have been entertained, together with the 
grounds adduced on their behalf. Pains have been taken 
to carefully collate and frankly state whatever has been 
urged in defence of the hypothesis by its ablest and 
most eminent advocates on each successive passage ; and 
this is then subjected to a thorough and candid exami- 
nation. The reader will thus be put in possession of the 
reasons for and against it to the best of the writer's abil- 
ity, and can form his own conclusion. The writer, while 
aiming at entire fairness in presenting both sides of the 
argument, does not conceal his own assured conviction 
of the overwhelming preponderance in favor of the faith 
of ages and against the divisive hypothesis of modern 
times. 

As the alleged criteria of the different documents are 
most fully and clearly stated by Dr. Dillmann, his pres- 
entation of them is followed throughout the book, unless 
where some other authority is expressly mentioned. 

To avoid constant circumlocution P, J, E, and D are 
frequently spoken of as though they were the real en- 
tities that the critics declare them to be, and passages 
are said to belong to one or the other because critics so 
affirm. Such language adopted for brevity must not be 
understood as an admission that the documents so called 
ever existed. 

In replying to the objections of Bishop Colenso in 
1863 the author ventured the suggestion that he might 
at some future time prepare a work on the criticism of 
the Pentateuch. Since that time the positions then 
taken by leading critics have been abandoned by them- 
selves, and their whole conception of the origin and con- 
stitution of the Pentateuch has been revolutionized. 

The complex character of the Pentateuchal question 



Vlll PREFACE 

and the tedious minuteness required in its thorough ex- 
amination doubtless supply the reason why so many 
critics are content with repeating or building upon the 
conclusions of their predecessors without investigating 
for themselves the soundness of the basis on which these 
conclusions rest. The author frankly confesses for him- 
self that, while he felt at every point the weakness and 
unsatisfactory character of the arguments of the divisive 
critics, he was long deterred by the complexity of the 
task from undertaking to prepare such a treatise as the 
nature of the case required. He might have continued 
still to shrink from it but for the proposal, in 1888, 
by his friend Dr. W. R. Harper, of an amicable dis- 
cussion of the subject in the columns of the Hebraica. 
The kindly proposal was accepted, though with some 
hesitation lest the cause whose defence was thus under- 
taken might suffer from unskilful advocacy. It seemed, 
however, to involve less responsibility and to be a less 
onerous undertaking to engage in such a discussion, 
piecemeal, in the columns of a quarterly journal, at 
the solicitation of a friend, than to set myself to the 
preparation of a work on the entire subject of my own 
motion. The discussion thus begun was continued at 
intervals, step by step, through the whole of the narrative 
portion of the Pentateuch. Though convinced at the 
outset of the unsoundness in the main of the arguments 
urged on behalf of the critical partition of the Penta- 
teuch by its principal defenders, I did not know but 
there might be some fire where there was so much 
smoke, and some possible foundation for the positive 
assertions in which the critics are so prone to indulge. 
The discussion was accordingly begun with no absolute 
prepossession on my part for or against the existence of 
Pentateuchal documents. One thing was clear to my 
mind from the beginning, that the Pentateuch as inspired 



PEEFACE IX 

of God was a true and trustworthy record ; everything 
else was left to be determined by the evidence which it 
should supply. As the discussion proceeded I found my- 
self unable to discover sufficient reason anywhere for the 
assumption that the Pentateuch was a compilation from 
pre-existing documents ; and by the time that my task 
was completed I had settled down in the assured belief 
that the so-called documents were a chimera, and that 
the much-vaunted discovery of Astruc was no discovery 
at all, but an ignis fcttuus which has misled critics ever 
since into a long and weary and fruitless search through 
fog and raire, that might better be abandoned for a 
forward march on terra fir ma. 

The discussion in the Hebraica prepared the way for 
the volume now offered to the public, in which the 
attempt is made to treat the question with more thor- 
oughness than was possible in the limitations necessarily 
imposed in a crowded quarterly. The ground there 
traversed has been carefully re-examined and explored 
afresh in the light shed upon it by the ablest minds on 
either side of the controversy. The prominence ac- 
corded to German scholars is due to the fact that they 
have been the chief laborers in the field. The various 
partition hypotheses, after Astruc's conjecture, as he 
himself termed it, had pointed out the way, have been 
originated and elaborated by German scholars. And if 
they have failed to put them upon a solid basis, it is 
from no lack of learning, ingenuity, or perseverance, but 
from the inherent weakness of the cause. 

It is hoped that this volume may prove a serviceable 
text-book for the study of criticism ; that it may meet 
the wants of theological students and ministers who de- 
sire to acquaint themselves thoroughly with a subject of 
such prominence and importance ; and that it may like- 
wise prove helpful to intelligent laymen who, omitting 



X PREFACE 

the discussion of Hebrew words that are necessarily in- 
troduced, may be led by it to a better understanding of 
the book of Genesis in its connection and the mutual 
relation of its several parts, and be helped in the solu- 
tion of difficulties and the removal of objections. It 
stands on the common ground, dear alike to all who re- 
gard the Pentateuch as the word of God through Moses, 
whether Jew or Christian, Catholic or Protestant, clergy- 
man or layman. If by the divine blessing it shall be 
made to contribute in any measure to the elucidation or 
defence of this part of Holy Scripture, or to the confir- 
mation of the faith of any, or to the relief of such as 
may have been perplexed or troubled by anxious doubts 
or misgivings, the author will be profoundly grateful to 
Him to whom all praise is due. 

Princeton, N. J., September 26, 1895. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Page 
The Book of Genesis, 1 

The creation of the heavens and the earth (Gen. i. 1-ii. 3), 
words indicative of P, 4. 



The Generations op the Heavens and the Earth (Ch. II. 
«V.), 

Primitive state and fall of man (ch. ii. 4-iii. 24), 7 ; false 
critical methods, 7 ; no duplicate account of the creation, 
9 ; no discrepancies, 20 ; words and phrases indicative of J, 
29 ; mutual relation of this and the preceding section, 33. 
Cain and Abel — Cain's descendants (ch. iv.), 36; marks of J, 39. 



II 

The Generations op Adam (Ch. V. 1-VI. 8), 42 

Adam to Noah (ch. v.), 42; the Cainite and Sethite gen- 
ealogies, 43 ; duplicate statements, 47 ; primeval chronology, 
49 ; marks of P, 50. The Sons of God and the Daughters of 
Men (ch. vi. 1-8), 51 ; marks of J, 61. 



Ill 

The Generations of Noah (Ch. VI. 9-IX. 29), 65 

The flood (ch. vi. 9-ix. 17), 65 ; the critical partition of 
ch. vi. 5-ix. 17, 66 ; J not continuous, 71 ; P not contin- 
uous, 78 ; no superfluous repetitions, 83 ; the divine names, 
88 ; no discrepancies, 90 ; difference of diction, 94 ; marks 
of P, 96 ; marks of J, 116 ; numerical correspondence, 121 ; 
the Assyrian flood tablets, 122. Noah after the flood (cfc t 
fx. 18-29), 127, 



Xll CONTENTS 



IV 

Page 

The Generations op the Sons of Noah (Ch. X. 1-XI. 9), 131 
Origin of nations (ch. x.), 131 ; marks of P, 141 ; marks 
of J, 143. Tower of Babel (ch. xi. 1-9), 143 ; marks of J, 
145. 



The Generations of Shem (Ch. XI. 10-26), 146 

Shem to Abram (ch. xi. 10-26), 146. 

VI 

The Generations of Terah (Ch. XI. 27-XXV. 11), ... 148 

Preliminary remarks, 148 ; the divine names, 151 ; the crit- 
ical partition, 154 ; no discrepancies, 161. The family of 
Terah (ch. xi. 27-32), 168. The call of Abram and his jour- 
neys (ch. xii.), 171 ; critical partition of vs. 1-9, 172 ; marks 
of P, 175 ; marks of J, 181. Abram in Egypt (vs. 10-20), 
182 ; marks of J, 185. Separation from Lot (ch. xiii), 185 ; 
grounds of partition, 186 ; marks of P, 192; marks of J, 193. 
Abram's rescue of Lot (ch. xiv.), 195. Promise and cove- 
nant of Jehovah (ch. xv.), 202. Birth of Ishmael (ch. xvi.), 
208 ; marks of P, 213 ; marks of J, 215. Covenant sealed 
by Abraham (ch. xvii.), 217; style of P, 226; marks of P, 
231. Visit to Abraham and destruction of Sodom (ch. xviii. 
1-xix. 28), 236 ; marks of J, 240. Lot's incest (ch. xix. 29- 
38), 246; marks of J, 250. Abraham with Abimelech, king 
of Gerar (ch. xx.), 250; critical embarrassment, 250 ; diction 
of ch. xx., 252; not referable to a distinct document, 254; 
marks of E, 259. Birth of Isaac and dismissal of Ishmael (ch. 
xxi. 1-21), 262; critical perplexity, 262 ; division impossible, 
266 ; marks of P, 269 ; marks of J, 269 ; marks of E, 270. 
Abraham at Beersheba (ch. xxi. 22-34), 273; marks of E, 
276. Sacrifice of Isaac (ch. xxii. 1-19), 277 ; the critical par- 
tition, 278 ; marks of E, 286 ; marks of R, 288 ; no proof of 
separate documents. 290. Family of Nahor (ch. xxii. 20-24), 
291 ; marks of J, 292. Death and burial of Sarah (ch. xxiii.), 
293; marks of P, 296. Marriage of Isaac (ch. xxiv.), 298; 
marks of J, 304. Conclusion of Abraham's life (ch. xxv. 
1-11), 307 ; marks of P, 310. 



CONTENTS Xlll 



VII 

Page 
The Generations of Ishmael (Ch. XXV. 12-18), . . . . 312 
Marks of P, 313. 

VIII 

The Generations of Isaac (Ch. XXV. 19-XXXV.), . . .314 
Esau and Jacob (ch. xxv. 19-34), 314 ; marks of P, 320 ; 
marks of J, 321. Isaac in Gerar and Beersheba (ch. xxvi. 
1-33), 322 ; marks of J, 326. Jacob's blessing and depart- 
ure (ch. xxvi. 34-xxviii. 9), 328 ; marks of P, 332 ; marks 
of J, 333 ; marks of E, 333. Jacob's dream (ch. xxviii. 
10-22), 335 ; marks of J, 341 ; marks of E, 342. Jacob in 
Haran (chs. xxix., xxx.), 344 ; the divine names, 350 ; 
marks of J, 353 ; marks of E, 354. Jacob's return from 
Haran (ch. xxxi.-xxxii. 3), 357; hiatus in the document P, 
362 ; the covenant of Laban and Jacob, 365 ; the divine 
names, 369; marks of P, 370; marks of E, 370. Meeting 
of Jacob and Esau (ch. xxxii. 4-xxxiii. 17), 372 ; Jacob 
wrestling with the angel, 377; no proof of a parallel narra- 
tive, 380 ; the divine names, 380 ; marks of J, 381. The 
rape of Dinah (ch. xxxiii. 18-xxxiv.), 382; Jacob's arrival 
in Shechem, 383 ; critical difficulties, 386 ; divergence of the 
critics, 388 ; not composite, 398 ; marks of P, 402 ; marks 
of J, 403. Jacob at Bethel and Isaac's death (ch. xxxv.), 
404. Jacob at Bethel, 405 ; death of Rachel, 408 ; grounds 
of partition irrelevant, 411 ; conclusion of the section, 412. 



IX 

The Generations of EsaTj (Ch. XXXVI. -XXXVII. 1), . .415 

Opinions of critics, 415 ; unity of the chapter, 417 ; no dis- 
crepancies, 420 ; no anachronism, 425. 



The Generations of Jacob (Ch. XXXVII. 2-L.), .... 430 
The unity of plan, 430; lack of continuity in the docu- 
ments, 434 ; the divine names, 434 ; diction and style, 435. 
Joseph sold into Egypt (ch. xxxvii. 2-36), 437 ; variance 



XIV CONTENTS 

Page 
among critics, 437 ; grounds of partition, 447 ; marks of J, 
450. The narrative of Judah and Tamar (ch. xxxviii.), 452 ; 
no lack of order, 452 ; no anachronism, 454 ; marks of J, 
455. Joseph is cast into prison (ch. xxxix.), 457; no dis- 
crepancies, 457 ; the divine names, 459 ; marks of J, 462. 
Dreams of the butler and baker (ch. xl.), 463 ; no discrep- 
ancy, 464; no anachronism, 466; diction, 467. Pharaoh's 
dreams (ch. xli.), 467; grounds of partition, 468. Journeys 
of Jacob's sons to Egypt (ch. xlii.-xliv.), 473 ; no discrep- 
ancy, 475 ; the divine names, 482 ; marks of J and E, 483. 
Joseph makes himself known (ch. xlv.), 487 ; marks of E, 
491. Removal to Egypt (ch. xlvi. 1-27), 492 ; marks of J, 
498 ; marks of E, 498 ; marks of P, 498. Settlement in 
Goshen (ch. xlvi. 29-xlvii. 11), 499 ; marks of P, 502 ; marks 
of J, 502. Joseph's arrangements in Egypt (ch. xlvii. 12-27), 
504; marks of E, 506; marks of J, 507 ; marks of P, 509. 
Jacob charges Joseph and adopts his sons (ch. xlvii. 28-xlviii. 
22), 510; marks of P, 518; marks of E, 518; marks of J, 
519. Jacob's blessing and death (ch. xlix.), 519 ; no vati- 
cinium post eventum, 521 ; marks of P, 526. The burial of 
Jacob and death of Joseph (ch. 1.), 526 ; marks of J, 529 ; 
marks of E, 530. 

Conclusion, 531 

Grounds of partition, 531 ; repetitions and discrepancies, 
532 ; the divine names, 538 ; diction, style, and conception, 
548 ; continuity of Genesis, 554 ; chasms in the documents, 
556 ; when and where produced, 560. Summary of the argu- 
ment, 571. 

INDEX. 

I. The Divine Names, 573 

II. Style, Conception and the Relation op Passages, . 573 

III. Chakacteristic Words and Phrases, 574 

IV. The English Equivalents, 579 



WORKS REFERRED TO IN THIS 
VOLUME 



%* These works are here arranged in t7ie order of their publication. 
The reader can thus see at a glance where each belongs in the history of 
critical opinion. 

Matthew Poole, Annotations upon the Holy Bible, First Edition, 1683. 
Astruc, Conjectures sur les Memoires Originaux, dont il paroit, que 

Moyse s'est servi pour composer le Livre de la Genese, 1753. 
Harmer, Observations on Divers Passages of Scripture, Second Edi- 
tion, 1776. 
Ilgen, Die Urkunden des ersten Buchs von Moses in ihrer Urgestalt, 

1798. 
Vater, Commentar iiber den Pentateuch, Theil i., ii., 1802 ; Theil iii., 

1805. 
Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Dritte Ausgabe, 1803 ; 

Vierte Ausgabe, 1823. 
DeWette, Beitrage zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Erstes Band- 

chen, 1806 ; Zweiter Band, 1807. 
Ewald, Die Komposition der Genesis kritisch untersucht, 1823. 
Gramberg, Libri Geneseos Secundum Fontes rite dignoscendos Adum- 

bratio nova, 1828. 
F. H. Ranke, Untersuchungen iiber den Pentateuch aus dem Gebiete 

der hoheren Kritik, Erster Band, 1831 ; Zweiter Band, 1840. 
Hengstenberg, Die Authentic des Pentateuches, Erster Band, 1836 ; 

Zweiter Band, 1839. 
Movers, Review of von Bohlen's Genesis in Zeitschrift Mr Philosophic 

und Katholische Theologie, 1836. 
Havernick, Handbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Alte 

Testament, Erster Theil, Zweite Abtheilung, 1837. 
Tuch, Kommentar iiber die Genesis, 1838 ; Zweite Auflage, 1871. 
Stahelin, Kritische Untersuchungen iiber den Pentateuch, die Bucher 

Josua, Richter, Samuels, und der KSnige, 1843. 
Kurtz, Die Einheit der Genesis, 1846. 
"Winer, Biblisches Realworterbuch, Dritte Auflage, 1847. 
Ewald, Jahrbiicher der Biblischen Wissenchaft for 1851-52. 



XVI WORKS REFERRED TO IN THIS VOLUME 

Knobel, Die Genesis, 1852. 

Delitzsch, Die Genesis, 1852, Dritte Ausgabe, 1860 ; Vierte Ausgabe, 

1872. Neuer Commentar iiber die Genesis, 1887. 
Kurtz, Geschichte des Alten Bundes, Erster Band, Zweite Auflage, 

1853. 
Hupf eld, Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung, 

1853. 
Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine and in the Adjacent Re- 
gions, 1856. 
Bohmer, Das Erste Buch der Thora, Ubersetzung seiner drei Quellen- 
schriften und der Redactionszusatze mit kritischen, exegetischen, 
historischen Erorterungen, 1862. 
Noldeke, Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments, 1869. 
Merx, Article on Dinah in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexikon, 1869. 
Schrader, Editor of the "eighth thoroughly improved, greatly en- 
larged and in part wholly transformed edition" of DeWette's 
Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen 
und apokryphischen Biicher des Alten Testaments, 1869. 
Kayser, Das vorexilische Buch der Urgeschichte Israels und seine 

Erweiterungen, ein Beitragzur Pentateuch-kritik, 1874. 
George Smith, Translation of the flood tablets in his Assyrian Dis- 
coveries, 1875 ; the Chaldean Account of Genesis, 1876 ; and 
Records of the Past, vol. vii., 1876. 
Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs, in the Jahrbticher fur 
Deutsche Theologie, 1876-1877 ; republished in Skizzen und 
Vorarbeiten, Zweites Heft, 1885 ; and again in Die Composition 
des Hexateuchs und der historischen Biicher des Alten Testa- 
ments, 1889. 
Kuenen, The Religion of Israel to the Fall of the Jewish State, trans- 
lated by A. H. May, vol. i., 1874. 
Dillmann, Die Genesis, first edition published as the third edition of 
Knobel's Commentary, 1875 ; second edition (Knobel's fourth), 
1882 ; third edition (Knobel's fifth), 1886. 
Wellhausen, Geschichte Israels, 1878, republished as Prolegomena zur 

Geschichte Israels, 1883. Third edition, 1886. 
Oort, The Bible for Learners, English translation, 1878. 
Colenso, The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua critically examined, 

Part vii., 1879. 
Reuss, Die Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften Alten Testaments, 1881. 
Haupt, Der keilinschriftliche Sintfluthbericht, in Schrader's Die Keil- 

inschriften und das Alte Testament, 1883. 
Budde, DieBiblische Urgeschichte (Gen. i— xii. 5), 1883. 
Kuenen, An Historico-critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composi- 
tion of the Hexateuch. Translated by P. H. Wicksteed, 1886. 



WORKS REFERRED TO IN" THIS VOLUME XV11 

Vatke, Historisch-kritische Einleitiing in das Alte Testament, 1886. 

Stade, Gescbiclite des Volkes Israel, 1887. 

Kittel, Gescbiclite der Hebraer, 1888. 

Harper, Tbe Pentateucbal Question, in tbe Hebraica for 1888-1892. 

Kautzscb und Socin, Die Genesis mit ausserer Unterscbeidung der 
Quellenscbriften, 1888 ; Zweite Auflage, 1891. Reproduced in 
Englisb as Genesis Printed in Colors, sbowing tbe original sources 
from wbicb it is supposed to bave been compiled, with an intro- 
duction by E. C. Bissell. 

Cornill, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1891. 

Driver, An Introduction to tbe Literature of tbe Old Testament, 1891. 

Strack, Die Genesis, 1892. 

Davis, Genesis and Semitic Tradition, 1894. 

Kuenen, Gesammelte Abbandlungen zur Bibliscben Wissencbaft. 
Aus dem Hollandischen ubersetzt von K. Budde, 1894. 



THE UNITY OF THE BOOK OF 
GENESIS 

THE BOOK OF GENESIS 

The history opens with an introductory section (ch. 
i.-ii. 3), which declares how God in the beginning created 
the heavens and the earth as the theatre upon which it 
was to be transacted. This is followed by ten sections 
of unequal length, which make up the rest of the book 
of Genesis, and are introduced by titles of a uniform 
pattern. These titles are as follows : 

1. Gen. ii. 4. These are the generations of the heaven 
and of the earth. 

2. Gen. v. 1. This is the book of the generations of 
Adam. 

3. Gen. vi. 9. These are the generations of Noah. 

4. Gen. x. 1. These are the generations of the sons of 
Noah. 

5. Gen. xi. 10. These are the generations of Shem. 

6. Gen. xi. 27. These are the generations of Terah. 

7. Gen. xxv. 12. These are the generations of Ish- 
mael. 

8. Gen. xxv. 19. These are the generations of Isaac. 

9. Gen. xxxvi. 1. These are the generations of Esau. 1 

10. Gen. xxx vii. 2. These are the generations of 
Jacob. 

1 Repeated, ver. 9, for a reason to be explained when that chapter 
comes under consideration. 
1 



2 THE BOOK OF GENESIS 

These titles are designed to emphasize and render 
more prominent and palpable an important feature of 
the book, the genealogical character of its history. This 
results from its main design, which is to trace the line of 
descent of the chosen race from the beginning to the 
point where it was ready to expand to a great nation, 
whose future organization was already foreshadowed, its 
tribes being represented in the twelve sons of Jacob, and 
its tribal divisions in their children. The genealogies 
contained in the book are not merely incidental or sub- 
ordinate, but essential, and the real basis of the whole. 
They are not to be regarded as addenda to the narrative, 
scraps of information introduced into it ; they constitute 
the skeleton or framework of the history itself. They 
are not separate productions culled from different sources, 
and here inserted by the author as he found them. From 
whatever quarters the materials may have been obtained 
they were cast into their present form by the writer him- 
self, as is evident from the uniformity of the construc- 
tion of those relating to the chosen race on the one hand, 
and those of alien races on the other, together with the 
unbroken continuity of the former. These exhibit at 
once the kinship of Israel to all the nations of the earth, 
all being of one blood and sprung from one common 
stock, and their separation from the rest of mankind for 
a special divine purpose, God's gracious choice of them 
to be his peculiar people until the time should arrive 
for spreading the blessing of Abraham over all the 
earth. 

There is, accordingly, a regular series of genealogies of 
like structure, or rather one continuous genealogy extend- 
ing from Adam to the family of Jacob. This is inter- 
rupted or suspended from time to time, as occasion re- 
quires, for the sake of introducing or incorporating facts 
of the history at particular points where they belong ; 



THE BOOK OF GENESIS 3 

after which it is resumed again precisely at the same 
point, and proceeds regularly as before until it reaches 
its utmost limit, thus embracing the entire history with- 
in itself. Thus, for example, the genealogy in ch. v. 
states in identically recurring formulae the age of each 
parent at the birth of his child, the number of years that 
he lived subsequently, and the length of his entire life. 
But when the name of Noah is reached, the record is, 
ver. 32, " And Noah was five hundred years old ; and 
Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth," three sons being 
mentioned instead of one, as was uniformly the case be- 
fore. And here the genealogy abruptly terminates with- 
out the further statements that analogy would lead us 
to expect, how long Noah lived after the birth of his 
children, and how many years he lived in all. This is 
not the end of a genealogical fragment, disconnected from 
all that follows. It is merely interrupted for a time in 
order to introduce the account of the deluge, which so 
intimately concerned Noah and his three sons ; after 
which the missing members are supplied, and the series 
resumed in substantially the same form as before (ix. 28, 
29). Again, the genealogy continued in xi. 10 sqq. breaks 
off (ver. 26) precisely as it had done before, by stating 
the age of a father at the birth of his three sons. " And 
Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and 
Haran ; " the usual statement as to the length of his life 
and the fact of his death being postponed to ver. 32, in 
order to introduce some facts respecting Terah and par- 
ticularly respecting his sons, which had an important 
bearing on the subsequent history. And the entire life 
of Abraham is fitted into the next link of the genealogy : 
his age at the birth of his son Isaac (xxi. 5), whom he 
begat (xxv. 19), and his full age at the time of his death 
(xxv. 7, 8). 



4 THE BOOK OF GENESIS 

THE CBEATION OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH (OH. I. 

l-n. 3). 

The critics assign this opening section of Genesis to P, 
because of its unvarying use of Elohim, as well as on the 
ground of its style and diction. They also include in 
this section ii. 4a, which they regard as a summary state- 
ment of its contents. This and the alleged difference of 
style between this section and the next can best be con- 
sidered hereafter. For the present it will be sufficient to 
give attention to the diction. Dr. Dillmann adduces the 
following words and expressions as indicative of P : T^ 
hind, species (vs. 11, 12, 21,24, 25) ; TWi n -^ !>**** of the 
earth (vs. 24, 25, 30) ; y~\ti creep, swarm, bring forth abun- 
dantly, and fTiZJ moving creature (vs. 20, 21) ; tal creep, 
and to*n creeping thing (vs. 21, 24-26, 28, 30) ; M3 subdue 
(ver. 28) ; nbpl* food (ver. 30) ; rnp'O gathering together, col- 
lection (ver. 10) ; Hl^l FTiS be fruitful and multiply (vs. 22, 
28) ; !"Dp?^ "IDT male and female (ver. 27) ; b^nn divide (vs. 
4, 6, 7, 14, 18) ; hWT likeness (ver. 26). 

The distribution of these words in the Hexateuch is 
instructive. That which is rendered "likeness" occurs 
besides in it only Gen. v. 1, 3, where it is used with ex- 
press allusion to i. 26. " Subdue " occurs besides in the 
Hexateuch only Num. xxxii. 22, 29 (a chapter in which, 
according to the critics, the documents P, J, and E are 
intermingled, and both of these verses contain what are 
reckoned indications of JE), and Josh, xviii. 1, an iso- 
lated verse in a JE paragraph. The rest of these words 
and phrases occur nowhere else in Genesis, unless it be 
in the account of the flood. And the reason why most 
of them are to be found there is obvious. The different 
classes of land animals brought into being at the creatioD 
perished in the flood, and it is natural that they should 
be mentioned in both cases ; like mention is also made 



THE CREATION (CH. I. l-II. 3) 5 

of " food " as necessary to life ; the perpetuation of the 
species leads to the reference to the sexes. The full 
phrase, as used in Gen. i., " Be fruitful and multiply and 
fill," or "replenish," only occurs again (ix. 1), in the 
blessing pronounced upon mankind after the flood, which 
was as appropriate as after the creation ; the phrase " Be 
fruitful and multiply " occurs besides only in application 
to Abraham and his descendants, where it is equally in 
place. Such of these words as occur elsewhere are found 
only in the ritual law. " Food " and " kind " and differ- 
ent sorts of animals are, as a matter of course, spoken of, 
where direction is given in respect to what may or may 
not be eaten ; and sex in like manner in prescribing the 
animals to be offered in sacrifice, or the purifications at the 
birth of children, or the rite of circumcision. " Divide " 
does not occur in the narrative of the flood, but is found 
again in the ritual law with reference to the distinctions 
there made in regard to clean and unclean, holy and un- 
holy or common, or separating to special functions or 
purposes, or to cleavage in sacrifice. The word translated 
" gathering together " is found but twice in the Hexateuch 
apart from Gen. i., viz., Ex. vii. 19, Lev. xi. 36, where 
collections of water are referred to, and nowhere else in 
this sense in the entire Old Testament. 

It is manifest from the foregoing that the occurrence 
of these words is determined, not by the predilection of 
a particular writer, but by the subject which calls for 
their employment. They belong not to the characteris- 
tics of a document, but are the common property of all 
who use the language, and may be found whenever there 
is occasion to describe the object denoted by them. 
Their absence from all the paragraphs or clauses as- 
signed by the critics to J or E is to be accounted for 
precisely as their absence from every paragraph of P but 
those designated above. 



6 THE BOOK OF GENESIS 

For a more detailed account of the usage of the words 
common to the creation and flood, see under ch. vi.-ix., 
Marks of P. 

Elohim is plainly the appropriate name for God 
throughout this section, which regards the Most High as 
working in nature and in the world at large. True, the 
creative act may be ascribed to Jehovah (Ex. xx. 11), 
when the thought to be conveyed is that Israel's God, 
who brought him out of the land of Egypt, was the cre- 
ator of the world ; but when the announcement to be 
made simply is that the world had a divine creator, Elo- 
him is the proper term, and is hence constantly used in 
the account of the creation. 



THE GENEKATIONS OF THE HEAVENS AND THE 
EAKTH (CH. II. 4-IV.) 

PEIMITIVE STATE AND FALL OF MAN (CH. II. 4-III. 24) 

The question to be considered is, Do these chapters 
continue the narrative begun in the preceding section, or 
do they introduce a new and independent narrative from 
an altogether different source ? The critics allege that 
they stand in no relation to what goes before, that a new 
beginning is here made, and that this account is taken 
from another document, that of J. It is said that the 
second chapter of Genesis cannot have been written by 
the author of the first chapter ; for (1) it is a second ac- 
count of the creation, and is superfluous for that reason ; 
(2) it differs from the first account, and is irreconcilable 
with it ; (3) the diction and style are different. 

FALSE CRITICAL METHODS 

The critics here bring into operation at the outset two 
vicious methods, which characterize their whole course 
of procedure and are the most potent instruments which 
they employ in effecting the partition of the text. 

The first is the arbitrary assumption that two different 
parts of a narrative, relating to matters which are quite 
distinct, are variant accounts of the same thing. It is 
very easy to take two narratives or two parts of the 
same narrative, which have certain points in common 



8 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH 

but which really describe different transactions, and lay 
them alongside of one another and point out the lack of 
correspondence between them. The artifice of the crit- 
ics consists in their identifying distinct things, and then 
every divergence of the one from the other is claimed 
as evidence that these are variant traditions, and that 
these discrepant accounts cannot be by the same author ; 
they must have been taken from different documents. 
Whereas, there is no mystery in the case and no occa- 
sion for any such extraordinary conclusion. The simple 
fact is that the writer has finished one part of his story 
and has proceeded to another ; and, as might be ex- 
pected, he does not detail over again what he had just 
detailed before. 

The second of the vicious methods, which is continu- 
ally practised by the divisive critics and is one of their 
most effective weapons, also finds exemplification in the 
chapters now under consideration. It is their constant 
effort to create a discordance where none really exists. 
Passages are sundered from their context, which eluci- 
date and determine their meaning, and then any form of 
expression which admits of a signification at variance 
with what is stated elsewhere is seized upon and pressed 
to the utmost and urged as a proof of diverse representa- 
tions, requiring the assumption of different documents ; 
when, if it were only allowed to bear its natural sense in 
the connection in which it stands, all appearance of dis- 
crepancy will disappear. There is nothing for which 
the critics seem to have such an aversion as a harmoniz- 
ing interpretation ; and very naturally, for it annuls all 
their work. And yet it is the plain dictate of common 
sense that the different parts of the same instrument 
should be interpreted in harmony, provided the language 
employed will in fairness admit of such an interpreta- 
tion. 



PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAN (CH. II. 4-III. 24) 9 

The simple observance of this obvious rule, together 
with the principle before referred to, that things which 
are really distinct should be treated as distinct, will not 
only relieve all the critical doubts and perplexities rela- 
tive to the chapters now before us, but the great major- 
ity of those which are raised in the rest of Genesis and 
of the Pentateuch as well. 



NO DUPLICATE ACCOUNT OF THE CEEATION 

That the second chapter does not contain another ac- 
count of the creation additional to that in the first can 
be readily shown. 

And in the first place it does not profess to be an ac- 
count of the creation, but something additional to and 
different from it. It is in express terms declared to be a 
sequel of the narrative of the creation. The second sec- 
tion is introduced by a special descriptive title (ver. 4a) : 
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the 
earth when they were created." It is very important to 
understand the precise meaning of these words and the 
purpose for which they are introduced. There has been 
much dispute both as to the proper connection of this 
clause and how it is to be understood. 

Is it a subscription to the preceding section, setting 
forth its contents ? Or is it introductory to the following- 
section and descriptive of its contents ? It can be shown 
beyond question that it is the heading of the section that 
follows, and is here introduced to announce its subject. 

The formula " These are the generations," etc., occurs 
ten times in the book of Genesis, and in every instance 
but the present indisputably as the title of the section to 
which it is prefixed. The history is parcelled into " the 
generations of Adam" (v. 1), " the generations of Noah" 
(vi. 9), "the generations of the sons of Noah" (x. 1), 



10 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH 

"the generations of Shem " (xi. 10), "the generations of 
Terah " (xi. 27), and so on to the end of the book. 

Each of these titles introduces a new section of the 
history, longer or shorter as the case may be, and an- 
nounces the subject treated -in that section. The book 
of Genesis after the first or preliminary chapter is thus, 
in the plan of its author, divided into ten distinct sections, 
to each of which he has given a separate heading of this 
uniform pattern. They are called " generations " be- 
cause the framework of the entire history is a genealogy, 
which is traced in a direct line from Adam to Jacob and 
his posterity. All the facts that are related and the 
statements made are introduced between the links of this 
genealogy. The line of descent is arrested at the proper 
point, the narratives belonging there are inserted, and 
then the line of descent is taken up again just where it 
left off and proceeds as before. Divergent lines are 
traced, as occasion arises, to a sufficient distance, and are 
then dropped, the writer uniformly reverting to the main 
line of descent, that of the chosen race, which is his prin- 
cipal theme. This being the constant plan of the book 
this formula, which in every other instance is the title 
of the section to which it is prefixed, must be the same 
in this case likewise. It is the heading of the second 
section, and can be nothing else. 

This conclusion is not only demanded by the uniform 
analogy of the entire series of similar titles but by other 
considerations likewise : 

1. It is confirmed by the identical structure of the im- 
mediately following clause here and in v. I, where the 
connection is unquestioned. "In the day of Jehovah 
Elohim's making earth and heaven," follows the title 
"the generations of the heaven and of the earth," in pre- 
cise conformity with " in the day of Elohim's creating 
Adam," after the title " the generations of Adam." 



PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAN (CH. II. 4-III. 24) 11 

2. If ii. 4a is a subscription to the preceding section, 
then ii. 4b-iv. 26 is the only portion of the book without 
a title, while i. 1— ii. 3 will have two titles, one which is 
entirely appropriate at the beginning (i. 1), and one which 
is altogether unsuitable at the end. 

3. On the divisive hypothesis the additional incongru- 
ity results, that when the section ascribed to J (ii. 4b-ch. 
iv.) is excluded, and the connection restored, as it origi- 
nally existed in P, ii. 4a will be immediately followed by 
v. 1, and thus two titles will have stood in direct juxta- 
position. 

Now what does the generations of the heavens and of 
the earth mean ? It has sometimes been interpreted to 
mean an account of the origin of the heavens and of the 
earth, such as we find in ch. i., to which it is then claimed 
that this must be attached as explanatory of the contents 
of that chapter. But neither the words themselves nor 
their usage elsewhere will admit of this interpretation. 

" The book of the generations of Adam " (v. 1) is a list 
of the descendants of Adam. " IJie generations of Noah " 
(vi. 9) records the history of Noah's family. "The gener- 
ations of the sons of Noah " (x. 1) and " the generations 
of Shem" (xi. 10), trace the various lines of their descend- 
ants. And so it is uniformly. " The generations of A 
or B " do not detail his ancestry or his origin, but either 
give the history of his immediate family or the continu- 
ous line of his descendants. And this the proper signifi- 
cation of the Hebrew word so rendered necessarily de- 
mands. It denotes " generations " in the sense of that 
which is generated or begotten, the offspring of a pro- 
genitor. 

Accordingly this title, " the generations of the heaven 
and the earth," must announce as the subject of the sec- 
tion which it introduces not an account of the way in 
which the heaven and the earth were themselves brought 



12 GENERATIONS OE HEAVEN AND EARTH 

into being, but an account of the offspring of heaven and 
earth ; in other words, of man who is the child of both 
worlds, bis body formed of the dust of the earth, his soul 
of heavenly origin, inbreathed by God himself. And so 
the sections proceed regularly. First, Gen. i. 1, "In 
the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," the 
title announcing that the theme of the first chapter is 
the creation. Then ii. 4, " The generations of the heav- 
ens and the earth," announcing that the theme of what 
follows is the offspring of heaven and earth, or the his- 
tory of Adam and his family. Then v. 1, " The genera- 
tions of Adam," in which his descendants are traced to 
Noah and his sons. Then vi. 4, " The generations of 
Noah," or the history of Noah's family, and so on to the 
end of the book. 

But here we are met by Dr. Dillmann and other lead- 
ing advocates of the divisive hypothesis, who say, It is 
true that " the generations of the heavens and the earth " 
denote that which has sprung from the heavens and the 
earth ; but this is the title of ch. i. nevertheless, which 
records how grass and trees and animals and man came 
forth from the earth, and the sun, moon, and stars made 
their appearance in the heavens. This must, therefore, 
originally have stood at the beginning of ch. i., and it has 
been transposed to its present position by the redactor. 
This shows what a useful person the redactor is in the 
service of the critics. Here is a clause which is seriously 
in their way where it stands at present. It rivets the 
second chapter to the first in more ways than one. It 
declares positively that ch. ii. is not a parallel account of 
the creation taken from another source, but is a sequel 
to the narrative of the creation already given in ch. i. 
Moreover, this formula, which the critics tell us is one of 
the marks of the document P, to which the first chapter 
is alleged to belong, as distinguished from the document 



PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAN (CH. II, 4-III. 24) 13 

J, to which the section before us is referred, and whose 
words are the words of P and not of J, is here found at- 
tached to the wrong document, thus annulling in certain 
marked respects their favorite argument from diction and 
style. It is an obstacle to be gotten rid of, therefore, at 
all hazards. The aid of the redactor is accordingly 
called in, and the disturbing clause is spirited away to a 
safe distance and located at the beginning of the first 
chapter, instead of the beginning of the second section, 
where it actually stands. 

Only it is unfortunate that the redactor is of no avail 
in the present instance. The clause in question never 
could have been the title of ch. i. It is obvious that the 
heavens and the earth must first be brought into exist- 
ence before the generations of the heavens and the earth 
can be spoken of, just as Adam and Noah must precede 
the generations of Adam and the generations of Noah. 
Besides, it would be altogether inappropriate as a title of 
ch. i. The firmament and the heavenly bodies, the seas 
and the dry land, the work of the first four days, are 
identical with the heavens and the earth, not their off- 
spring. The creating and shaping of the material uni- 
verse cannot with propriety be included under the " gen- 
erations " of the heavens and the earth, and the writer of 
the chapter could never have expressed its purport in 
such terms. And even the vegetable and animal prod- 
ucts, which by creative fiat were made to issue from the 
earth on the third, fifth, and sixth days, were wholly of 
an earthly, not a heavenly, mould. And the title, if un- 
derstood of such products, would stand in no relation to 
the subsequent titles of the book. Grass and trees and 
animals supply no stepping-stone to the next title, the 
Generations of Adam. It is only Adam himself that can 
do this. It is not until ver. 26 that the creation of man 
is reached. And man in ch. i. is considered simply in his 



14 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH 

place in the general scheme of created things. He is in- 
troduced into the world ; but there is no record of what 
befell him or his family, such as we are authorized to ex- 
pect, such as is in fact given in ii. 4b-iv. 26. Every sim- 
ilar title in Genesis is followed either by a history of the 
immediate offspring or by successive generations of de- 
scendants. 

The clause which we have been considering is an ob- 
stacle to the partition of the first two chapters which it 
has not been possible to remove by any critical device. 
It plainly declares the subject of the second section to 
be not the creation of the world, but the formation of 
man and the first stage of human history. 

It remains to be added that an examination of the 
second section itself will show that it does not in point 
of fact contain a fresh account of the creation. The 
opening words, " In the day that Jehovah God made the 
earth and the heavens," do not introduce an account of 
making earth and heaven, but presuppose it as having 
already taken place, and the writer proceeds to indicate 
the condition of things when it was done and what fol- 
lowed subsequently. No mention is made of the forma- 
tion of the earth or the production of the dry land ; none 
of the sea and its occupants ; none of the firmament or of 
the sun, moon, and stars ; none of covering the earth with 
its varied vegetation, but only of planting a garden in 
Eden and making its trees grow from the ground (vs. 8, 9). 
When banished from Eden, man was to eat " the herb of 
the field " (iii. 18), whose existence is thus assumed, but 
whose production is only spoken of in ch. i. These par- 
ticulars could not be omitted from an account of the crea- 
tion. To say, as is done by Dr. Dillmann, that they may 
originally have been contained inch, ii., but were omitted 
by E because they were treated sufficiently in ch. i., is to 
make an assumption without a particle of evidence, 



PEIMITIVE STATE OF MAN (CH. II. 4-III. 24) 15 

which amounts simply to a confession that ch. ii. is not 
what it would have been if the writer had intended to 
give a narrative of the creation, and that its omissions 
are with definite reference to the contents of ch. i. In 
other words, ch. ii. has no claim to be regarded as a sep- 
arate and complete account of the creation ; and it has 
not been prepared independently of ch. i., but is design- 
edly supplementary to it. 

Chapter ii. has thus far been considered negatively, 
and it has been shown what it is not. It is not a second 
account of the creation ; and it has not been prepared in- 
dependently of ch. i. and without regard to the contents 
of that first chapter. It is now in order to state posi- 
tively what ch. ii. actually is. It is evidently through- 
out preliminary to ch. iii., the narrative of the fall. In 
order to make this intelligible it was necessary to ex- 
plain (1), the two constituents of man's nature, his body 
formed of the dust of the ground, and the breath of life 
imparted directly by God himself (ver. 7). It was neces- 
sary that this should be known, that the reader might 
comprehend on the one hand the potential immortality 
set within his reach, and on the other the sentence ac- 
tually incurred that dust must return to dust (iii. 19). 
(2) The locality, which was the scene of the temptation 
and fall, the garden of Eden, with its tree of life and the 
tree of the knowledge of good and evil (vs. 8-17). (3) 
The actors, Adam and Eve, in their superiority to the 
rest of the creation, and their relation to each other (vs. 
18-25). These particulars could not have been incor- 
porated in ch. i. without marring its symmetry. That 
deals with the creation of the world at large. Every- 
thing is on a universal scale. And to introduce a de- 
tailed description of the garden of Eden, with its arrange- 
ments and man's position in it, would have been quite 
inappropriate. The plan and purpose of ch. i. made it 



16 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH 

necessary to reserve this for the following section, and 
it is accordingly given in ch. ii. 

It follows from what has been said that all compari- 
sons made, or contrasts drawn, between ch. i. and ch. ii. 
on the assumption that they are separate and indepen- 
dent accounts of the same transaction are necessarily fal- 
lacious. In the one the scene embraces the whole world 
with all that it contains. In the other it is limited to the 
garden of Eden, which is fitted up for the habitation of 
the first human pair. The first advances by a succession 
of almighty fiats from the initial production of inanimate 
matter to the culmination of the whole grand process in 
the creation of man in the image of God. The second 
deals exclusively with the primitive state of man, which 
is minutely explained with a special view to the tempta- 
tion and fall ; all is on the plane of individual life and 
moves steadily forward to that first transgression by 
which man lost his original holiness and communion 
with God. The second chapter is thus in no sense par- 
allel to the first, but is its natural sequel. It is the suc- 
ceeding scene in the sacred history, the next act, so to 
speak, in the divine drama which is here transacting. It 
introduces the reader to a new and distinct stage in the 
unfolding of that plan of God which it is the purpose of 
the book of Genesis to record. 

With such marked differences in the design and the 
contents of the two chapters, it follows, of course, that each 
has a character of its own distinct from the other. It is 
very easy to set one over against the other and to point 
out their distinctive qualities. But the dissimilar feat- 
ures, which so readily offer themselves to the observer, 
result directly and necessarily from the diversity of the 
subjects respectively treated in each, and require no as- 
sumption of the idiosyncrasies of different writers or the 
peculiarities of separate documents to account for them. 



PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAN (CH. II. 4-III. 24) 17 

Thus, for example, if it be said with Dr. Harper (" He- 
braica," vol. i., pp. 25-27) that ch. i. is " generic," dealing 
with species and classes, and ch. ii. is "individual," how 
could they be otherwise, considering their respective 
themes ? One records the formation of the world as a 
whole, and of the various orders of beings that are 
in it ; the other deals specifically with the first human 
pair. 

If it be said that the first chapter is " systematic," 
" chronological," and " scientific," the reason is that the 
nature of its subject brings these features into marked 
prominence. When the work of six successive days is 
to be stated, each advancing upon the preceding by reg- 
ular gradations, and together embracing all the various 
ranks of created things, the subject itself prescribes the 
mode of treatment adapted to it, which must be system- 
atic, chronological, and scientific, if the theme proposed 
is to be clearly and satisfactorily presented. But why 
should a writer who shows his capacity for the classifi- 
cation of genera and species where his subject demands 
it, lug in his scientific terms or methods where no such 
classification is called for ? If he has pursued a chrono- 
logical method in ch. i., where the subject divides itself 
into successive periods, what is to hinder his adoption of 
a topical method in chs. ii. and iii., where he groups the 
various incidents and particulars with masterly skill, and 
all leads as directly up to the catastrophe of the fall as 
in ch. i. all marches steadily forward to the Sabbath-day 
of rest ? There is as clear evidence of system in the 
logical order of the narration in chs. ii. and iii. as in the 
chronological order of ch. i. And there is the same 
graphic power and masterly presentation in the grand 
and majestic tableaux of ch. i. as in the simple and 
touching scenes so delicately depicted in chs. ii. and iii. 
When it is said that ch. ii. is " picturesque and poet- 



18 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH 

ical," it may be said with equal propriety that ch. i. is 
sublimely poetical. The scenes are drawn in bold relief, 
and stand as vividly before the reader as anything in the 
chapters that follow ; only the scenes themselves are of 
a different description. One gives the impression of im- 
mensity and power and vast terrestrial changes ; the 
other of beauty and pathos and the development of per- 
sonal character. Cannot the same writer handle diverse 
themes ? And if he do, must he not be expected to treat 
each in the way appropriate to itself ? 

It is claimed that ch. i. deals in " stereotyped " 
phrases and is " verbose and repetitious," while the 
style of chs. ii. and iii. is " free and flowing." This 
again is due to the nature of the subjects with which 
they respectively deal. Ch. i. is monumental, conducted 
on a scale of vastness and magnificence, and its charac- 
ters are massive and unyielding as if carved in granite. 
Chs. ii. and iii. deal with plastic forms of quiet beauty, 
the charms of paradise, the fateful experiences of Adam 
and Eve. In the onward progress of creation all is con- 
ducted by the word of omnipotence, to which the result 
precisely corresponds. To mark this correspondence in 
the most emphatic manner, the command is issued in 
explicit terms ; and the answering result, which exactly 
matches it, is described in identical language. There are, 
besides, certain constant and abiding features, which 
characterize the creative work from first to last, and 
which abide the same in the midst of all the majestic 
changes which are going forward. There is the regu- 
lar recurrence of each creative day, of the daily putting 
forth of almighty power, of God's approval of his work 
which perfectly represents the divine idea, the name 
given to indicate its character, the blessing bestowed to 
enable it to accomplish its end. To mark all this in the 
most emphatic manner, the identical phrases are re- 






PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAN (CH. II. 4-III. 24) 19 

peated throughout from first to last. The solemn and 
impressive monotone, which thus runs through the 
whole, heightens the grandeur of the description, and is 
suggestive of that divine serenit}^ which steadily and un- 
deviatingly moves onward in its appointed course, while 
the ponderous periods aptly befit the massive objects 
with which they deal. There is no call for such a style 
in simple narrative like ch. ii., where it would be utterly 
out of place and stilted in the extreme. That the char- 
acteristics which have been referred to are due to the 
subject of ch. i., and not to some imaginary peculiarity 
of the writer, is plain, even if the critical partition of 
Genesis were accepted. For the narratives, which the 
critics assign to the same document as ch. i., differ as 
widely from it as ch. ii. does. 

In like manner Dr. Dillmann urges, in proof of a di- 
versity of writers, that the author of ch. i. " restricts 
himself to the great facts without entering in an explan- 
atory way into particular details," and that he uses " a 
ceremonious, solemn, formal style of writing," as dis- 
tinguished from the " evenness " of chs. ii. and iii. This 
is sufficiently answered in what has been already said. 
The difference arises from the nature of the subject, not 
from the habit of the writer. As Dr. Dillmann himself 
justly says : " The author in writing was fully conscious 
of the unique loftiness of his subject ; there is not a 
word too much, yet all is clear and well defined ; no- 
where is there anything artificial and far-fetched ; only 
once in an appropriate place he allows himself to rise to 
elevated poetic speech (ver. 27) ; even the expressions 
savoring of a remote antiquity, which he here and there 
employs (vs. 2, 24), have evidently come down to him 
with the matter from the olden time, and serve admi- 
rably to enhance the impression of exalted dignity." 

It is said that ch. i. proceeds from the lower to the 



20 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH 

higher, ending with man ; while, on the contrary, ch. ii. 
begins with the highest, viz., with man, and proceeds to 
the lower forms of life. But as ch. ii. continues the his- 
tory begun in ch. i., it naturally starts where ch. i. ends, 
that is to say, with the creation of man, especially as the 
whole object of the chapter is to depict his primitive 
condition. 

These various contrasts between ch. i. and ii. explain 
themselves at once, as has now been shown from the di- 
versity of theme. They could only be supposed to lend 
support to the critical hypothesis of different documents 
on the false assumption that the theme of both chapters 
was the same. 



NO DISCREPANCIES. 

While each of these chapters pursues consistently and 
steadily its own proper aim, they have certain points of 
contact, in which it is to be remarked that the second 
chapter supplements the first, but there is no discrep- 
ancy between them. In fact it is as inconsistent with 
the document hypothesis as it is with that of unity of 
authorship to suppose that we have here two divergent 
stories of the creation. The redactor does not place 
them side by side, as two varying accounts, which he 
makes no attempt to reconcile, but lays before his read- 
ers precisely as he found them. There is no intimation 
that they are alternatives, one or the other of which may 
be accepted at pleasure. On the contrary, chs. i. and ii. 
are recorded as equally true and to be credited alike. 
The inference cannot reasonably be avoided that the re- 
dactor, if there was one, saw no inconsistency in these 
narratives. Elsewhere the critics tell us he has corrected 
divergent accounts into harmony. He could have seen 
no need of correction here, for he has made none. The 






PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAN (CH. II. 4-III. 24) 21 

case is supposable indeed that some minute and subtle 
inconsistency may have escaped his notice. But there 
can be no open or glaring inconsistency, or he would 
have detected and removed it, or at least remarked upon 
it. To suppose otherwise is to charge him with defi- 
ciency in ordinary intelligence. 

The first chapter continues the narrative of the crea- 
tion until the crowning-piece was put upon the work by 
making man in the image of God, and giving him, as 
God's vicegerent, dominion over all in this lower world. 
To prepare the way for the history of the temptation and 
fall, which comes next in order, it was needful to give 
further particulars respecting man's primitive condition, 
which it would have been incongruous to include in the 
general account of the creation of the world in ch. i. 
These are accordingly supplied in ch. ii. 

One of these particulars is his location in the garden 
of Eden. In order to lead up in a simple and natural 
way to the description of this garden, the writer reminds 
his readers, in precise conformity with ch. i., that when 
heaven and earth were first made the latter contained 
nothing for the subsistence of man. Ch. ii. 4, 5 should be 
rendered, " In the day that Jehovah God made earth and 
heaven no bush of the field was yet in the earth, and no 
herb of the field had yet sprung up." There was neither 
bush nor herb to serve man for food. The threefold 
classification of i. 11, 12 — grass, herb, and tree— is not 
repeated here, for grass was the food of beasts, and there- 
fore not to the purpose. "Bush" is used rather than 
" tree," to make the negative stronger. There was not 
only no tree, there was not even a bush. Subsequently 
trees (ii. 9) and herbs (iii. 18) are named, as the plants 
yielding food for human use, just as in i. 29. 

The suggestion that in ch. i. both trees and herbs are 
assigned to man as his food from the beginning, while in 



22 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH 

chs. ii., iii. he eats the fruit of trees in Eden, and is 
condemned to eat herbs after his fall (iii. 18), overlooks 
the real point of contrast, which is not between trees and 
herbs, but between the trees of the garden and the herb 
of the field, between the tillage of paradise and gaining 
his bread by the sweat of his face from a reluctant soil 
bringing forth thistles and thorns. Only trees are ex- 
pressly spoken of in Eden, because one tree was the test 
of obedience, and another the pledge of immortal life ; 
but there is no more reason for denying the existence of 
esculent herbs in paradise than for assuming that there 
were no fruit-trees outside of it. 

The form of expression, " In the day that Jehovah 
God made earth and heaven," has given occasion to cavil, 
as though that was here assigned to one day, which ch. i. 
divides between the second and third creative days. It 
might as well be said that Num. iii. 1, "In the day that 
Jehovah spake unto Moses in Mount Sinai " implies that 
all the revelations given to Moses at Sinai were made 
within the compass of a single day ; or that " the day of 
adversity " means a period of twenty-four hours. The 
use of " day," in the general sense of " time," is too fa- 
miliar to require further comment. 

The reason given for the absence of food-bearing 
plants is twofold ; there was no rain to moisten the 
earth, and no man to till the ground. 1 There is no vari- 
ance here with ch. i. The suggestion that if the land 
had just emerged from the water, rain would not be 

1 My friend, Dr. C. M. Mead, of Hartford Theological Seminary, in 
a casual conversation on this subject suggested what, if my memory 
serves me, was also maintained by Ebrard in a little tract on Natural 
Science and the Bible, issued several years since, that the last clause 
of ii. 5 is not connected with that which immediately precedes. 
" There was no plant (for there had been no rain), and there was no 
man." Upon this construction there is not even the semblance of an 
intimation that man existed before plants. 



PKIMITIVE STATE OF MAN (CH. II. 4-III. 24) 23 

needed, leaves out of view that according to i. 9, 10, the 
separation of land and water was complete, and the earth 
was dry land, before any plants appeared upon its sur- 
face. A well-watered garden with ever-flowing streams 
was to be the abode of man ; in anticipation of this it 
was natural to refer to the need of rain. And there is 
no implication that man was made prior to the existence 
of vegetation, contrary to i. 12, 27. For 

1. Ch. ii. alleges nothing respecting the relative prior- 
ity of man or plants. It does not deal with the general 
vegetation of the globe any further than to carry us back 
to a time when it did not exist. Of its actual production 
ch. ii. says nothing. Its positive statement is restricted 
to the trees of the garden of Eden (vs. 8, 9), and we are 
nowhere informed that these were brought into being at 
the same time with vegetation elsewhere. Nothing is 
said of the origin of grass and herbs, or of trees, outside 
of Eden, except in ch. i. Dr. Dillmann admits this. He 
says : " One would expect that in what follows, either 
before or after ver. 7, mention should be made of the 
production of the vegetable world, and completing the 
formation of the world itself. But there is nothing of 
the sort. There can hardly have been such a gap orig- 
inally ; it rather appears that something has been omitted 
by R, either because it seemed a needless repetition after 
ch. i., or disagreed with ch. i." The passage does not ful- 
fil the critics' expectation, for the simple reason that the 
writer had no such intention as they impute to him. He 
is not giving another account of the creation. He is 
merely going to speak of the garden of Eden ; and that 
is all he does. 

2. The existence of man is stated to be a condition of 
that of plants designed for human use, not as an ante- 
cedent but as a concomitant. His tillage is requisite (ii. 
5), not to their production but to their subsequent care 



24 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH 

and cultivation. Jehovah planted the garden and made 
the trees grow in it, and then set man to till it, ver. 15, 
where the same verb is used as in ver. 5. 

3. The order of statement is plainly not that of time, 
but of association in thought. Yer. 7, man is formed ; 
ver. 8, the garden is planted and man put in it ; ver. 9, 
trees are made to spring up there ; ver. 15, man is taken 
and put in it. We cannot suppose the writer's meaning 
to be that man was made before there was any place in 
which to put him, and that he was kept in suspense until 
the garden was planted ; that he was then put there be- 
fore the trees that were to supply him with food had 
sprung up ; and that after the trees were in readiness he 
was put there a second time. It is easy to deduce the 
most preposterous conclusions from a writer's words by 
imputing to them a sense which he never intended. In 
order to pave the way for an account of the primitive 
paradise, he had spoken of the earth as originally desti- 
tute of any plants on which man might subsist, the ex- 
istence of such plants being conditioned on that of man 
himself. This naturally leads him to speak, first, of the 
formation of man (ver. 7) ; then of the garden in which 
he was put (ver. 8). A more particular description of the 
garden is then given (vs. 9-14), and the narrative is again 
resumed by repeating that man was placed there (ver. 15). 
As there was plainly no intention to note the strict 
chronological succession of events, it cannot in fairness 
be inferred from the order of the narrative that man was 
made prior to the trees and plants of Eden, much less 

1 The critics' assumption that vs. 10-15 is an interpolation, inasmuch 
as the description of the garden is a departure from strict narrative 
which is afterward resumed, as well as Budde's notion (Biblische Ur- 
geschichte, pp. 48 sqq.) that the tree of life is to be erased from ver. 9 
and elsewhere, as not belonging to the narrative originally, deserve 
notice only as illustrating the perfectly arbitrary standard of genuine- 
ness which is set up. 






PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAN (CH. II. 4-III. 24) 25 

that he preceded those of the world at large, of which 
nothing is here said. 

But what cannot be accomplished by the order of the 
narrative some critics propose to effect by means of a 
grammatical construction. They put vs. 5, 6, in a paren- 
thesis, and link ver. 4 directly to ver. 7, and read thus : 
Ver. 4, In the day that Jehovah God made the earth and 
the heavens (ver. 5, Now no bush of the field was yet in 
the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up ; 
for Jehovah God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, 
and there was not a man to till the ground. Yer. 6, And 
there went up vapor from the earth, and watered the 
whole face of the ground). Yer. 7, Then Jehovah God 
formed man, etc. The meaning will then be : " In the day 
that Jehovah God made earth and heaven, Jehovah God 
formed man of the dust of the ground, while no bush of 
the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field 
had yet sprung up." But apart from the fact that the 
assumption of so long a parenthesis is of very doubtful 
propriety in Hebrew construction generally, it is abso- 
lutely impossible here. Yer. 5 states a twofold reason 
why there were no plants adapted to human use ; there 
had been no rain and there was no man to use them. 
The first of these conditions is supplied in ver. 6, vapor 
rises, and falling in rain waters the ground ; the second, 
in ver. 7, man is made ; vs. 6 and 7 must accordingly 
stand in like relation to ver. 5, so that ver. 6 cannot be 
included in the parenthesis and ver. 7 be linked back to 
ver. 4. 

Furthermore, ch. ii. does not contradict ch. i. in re- 
spect to the order of the creation of man and of the 
lower animals. The allegation that it does rests upon the 
assumption that the Hebrew tense here used necessarily 
implies a sequence in the order of time, which is not 
correct. The record is (ver. 19), " And out of the ground 



26 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EAETH 

Jehovah God formed all the beasts of the field, and all 
the fowls of heaven, and brought them to Adam." Ac- 
cording to Hebrew usage this need not mean that the 
formation of the birds and the beasts was subsequent to 
all that is previously recorded in the chapter, or that the y 
were then first formed with the view of providing a suit- 
able companion for Adam. And when the scope of the 
passage is duly considered it will be seen that this can- 
not be its meaning. 

It is a significant fact that Dr. Delitzsch, who is an 
adherent of the document hypothesis, and can be sus- 
pected of no bias against it, and who in all the former 
editions of his " Commentary on Genesis " found ch. i. 
and ch. ii. at variance on this point, in the last edition, 
embodying his most matured views, affirms that there is 
no discrepancy whatever, that " et formavit . . . et 
adduxit = et cum formasset adduxit," and that this is 
both possible in point of style and consonant to the 
mode of writing in the Bible history. 

The English rendering which best suggests the rela- 
tion of the clauses is, " Jehovah God having formed out 
of the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of 
heaven, brought them unto the man." The Hebrew 
phrase suggests that forming the animals preceded their 
being brought to the man, but need not suggest anything 
whatever as to the relation of time between their forma- 
tion and what had been mentioned just before in the nar- 
rative. In numberless passages in the English version 
of the Bible similar expressions are paraphrased in order 
to express this subordination of the first verb to the 
second. Thus in Gen. iii. 6 the Hebrew reads, " And 
the woman saw that the tree was good for food, . . . 
and she took of the fruit thereof," for which the English 
version correctly substitutes, " And when the woman saw 
. . . she took." It might with equal propriety be 



PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAN (CH. II. 4-III. 24) 27 

rendered, " The woman seeing that the tree was good for 
food . . . took of the fruit thereof." 

Dr. Dillmann admits that the tense here used might 
antedate what immediately precedes, but insists that ver. 
18, " I will make him an help meet for him," implies that 
the animals were now made as well as brought to Adam. 
But to suppose that the beasts and birds were made in 
execution of this divine purpose is not only a grotesque 
conception in itself, but involves the incongruity that the 
Lokd's first attempts were failures. If there are critics 
who account this " the natural interpretation," it is in 
the face of the whole Israelitish conception of God as 
expressed by every writer in the Old Testament. Ob- 
serve that God's original purpose, as here announced, is 
not I will make him a companion of some sort, or such a 
companion as he may be willing to have, but I will make 
him an help meet for him, or, more exactly rendered, a 
help corresponding to him, a precise counterpart to him- 
self. The beasts were brought to Adam not as the com- 
panion intended for him, but " to see what he would call 
them," i.e., to let them make their impression on him and 
thus awaken in his mind a sense both of his need of com- 
panionship arid of their unfitness for the purpose. When 
this had been accomplished Eve was made. The ani- 
mals are here regarded simply with a view to this end. 
If the writer were describing the creation of the inferior 
animals as such, he would speak of all the orders of liv- 
ing things, not neglecting reptiles and aquatic animals. 

The Lokd made the birds and beasts and brought them 
to Adam. The main point is that they were brought to 
Adam. It was of no consequence, so far as the imme- 
diate purpose of the narrative is concerned, when they 
were made, whether before Adam or after, and the mere 
order of statement cannot in fairness be pressed as 
though it determined the order of time in this particu- 



28 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH 

lar. If, however, this is insisted upon, and we are told 
that according to the "natural interpretation" of this 
passage it teaches that the birds and beasts were not 
made until after Adam, then it must be said that the 
same sort of " natural interpretation " will create absurd- 
ities and contradictions in many other passages beside. 
Thus in Gen. xxiv. 64, 65, " Rebekah saw Isaac and light- 
ed off the camel, and she said to the servant, What man 
is this, and the servant said, It is my master." Here, if 
the order of statement is made the order of time, Re- 
bekah alighted, out of respect to her future husband, be- 
fore she had inquired and learned who the man was that 
she saw. So Ex. iv. 31, " And the people believed and 
they heard, . . . and they bowed their heads and wor- 
shipped." According to this the people believed the 
words of Moses and Aaron before they heard them. It 
is said of the men sent by Joshua to spy out Jericho, 
(Josh. ii. 22), " They came unto the mountain and abode 
there three days until the pursuers were returned ; and 
the pursuers sought them and found them not." From 
which it appears that the pursuers returned from their 
unsuccessful search before their search was begun. The 
old prophet in Bethel asked his sons about the man of 
God who came from Judah (1 Kin. xiii. 12), " What way 
went he ? And his sons saw what way the man of God 
went." Here "saw " is plainly equivalent to " had seen," 
since the man had left some time before. Isa. xxxvii. 
2-5, Hezekiah sent Eliakim and others to Isaiah, and 
they said unto him, Thus saith Hezekiah so and so : 
and the servants of Hezekiah came to Isaiah and Isaiah 
said unto them, etc. That is, they told Isaiah what they 
had been bidden to say before they came to him. Deut. 
xxxi. 9, "And Moses wrote this law and delivered it 
unto the priests," i.e., he delivered to them the law 
which he had written ; the delivery of the law was subse- 






PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAN (CH. II. 4-III. 24) 29 

quent to the address to Joshua (vers. 7, 8), but not the 
writing of it. 

Now, an j candid man may judge whether declining to 
accept a principle of interpretation which leads to such 
absurd results can be called wresting Scripture from its 
natural sense? If not, then no suspicion of wresting 
Scripture language can possibly attach to the assertion 
that there is not a shadow of contrariety between ch. i. 
and ch. ii. in respect to the order of creation. 

It is clear that the alleged inconsistencies do not exist 
in the record but are of the critics' own making. It is 
surprising that they do not see that in their eagerness to 
create discrepancies in evidence of a diversity of writers 
they are cutting away the ground beneath their own 
feet. Glaring discrepancies might consist with the frag- 
mentary bat not with the documentary hypothesis. The 
manner in which these documents are supposed to be 
woven together demands a high degree of skill and intel- 
ligence in the redactor ; and to allege at the same time 
that "he did not have insight sufficient to enable him to 
see that he was all the time committing grave blunders " 
is self-contradictory. 

In the diction of these chapters Dillmann notes the 
following words and phrases as indicative of J : 

1. iiW make or -Reform, instead of ana create, as in ch. i. 
But " make " is used ten times in the first section, and of 
the same things as " create," cf. i. 1 with vs. 7, 8 ; i. 26 
with ver. 27 ; i. 21 with ver. 25, ii. 3. In ch. i. the promi- 
nent thought is that of the immediate exercise of divine 
almighty power, hence, ver. 1, " God created the heaven 
and the earth ; " ver. 21, " created whales and winged fowl ; " 
ver. 27, " created man, " so v. i. 2 ; " all which God created " 
ii. 3 ; and these are all the P passages in which the word 
occurs. Ch. ii. directs attention to the material, of which 
the bodies were composed ; hence, ver. 7, " formed man 



30 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH 

of dust ; " ver. 19, " formed beasts out of the ground." In 
Isa. xliii. 1 ; xlv. 7, 12, 18, " create," " form," and " make " 
are used together, and in the same sentence, of God's 
creative agency. " Form " occurs nowhere in the Hexa- 
teuch except in this chapter ; in the only other instance 
in which the creation of man is alluded to in a paragraph 
assigned to J, Gen. vi. 7 the word " create " is used ; it 
likewise occurs in Ex. xxxiv. 10 ; Num. xvi. 30 J. And if 
the absence of " form " from the rest of J has no signifi- 
cance, why is there any in its absence from P ? 

2. STlten rpn beast of the field (ii. 19, 20 ; iii. 1, 14) instead 
of Y~\#n n?n beast of the earth, as i. 24, 25 ; also TTiwn n^to 
bush of the field (ii. 5), tVfWT} 2W herb of the field (ii. 5 ; iii. 
18). The open field is here in tacit contrast with the en- 
closed and cultivated garden; cf. iii. 18. "Beast of the 
field " is the ordinary phrase throughout the Bible. But 
when terrestrial are contrasted with aquatic animals 
(i. 21, 22), and especially when the whole broad earth 
is spoken of, they are naturally called " beasts of the 
earth." 

3. D?SH this time, noiv (ii. 23). See chs. xviii., xix., 
Marks of J, No. 9. 

4. l^oSto because (iii. 17). See chs. vi.-ix., Marks of J, 
No. 17. 

5. inbnb not to (iii. 11). See chs. xviii., xix., Marks of 
J, No. 14 

6. ns-T ma what is this (iii. 13). See ch. xii. 10-22, 
Marks of J,~No. 7. 

7. y\2%y sorrow, toil (iii. 16, 17) ; it occurs but once 
besides in the Old Testament (v. 29), and with express 
allusion to this passage. 

8. flha drive out (iii. 24). See ch. xxi. 1-21, Marks of 
E, No. 5. 

9. bipb yiy® hearken unto the voice (iii. 17). See ch. 
xvi., Marks of J, No. 8. 



PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAN (CH. II. 4-III. 24) 31 

10. nsnn nsnn greatly multiply (iii. 16). See ch. xvi., 
Marks of J, No. 10. 

Jehovah is distinctively the God of revelation and of 
redemption ; hence in this section, where God's grace to 
man is the prominent thought, his care and favor be- 
stowed upon him in his original estate, the primal prom- 
ise of mercy after the fall, and the goodness mingled with 
severity which marked the whole ordering of his condi- 
tion subsequently, that salutary course of discipline which 
was instituted with a view to gracious ends, Jehovah is 
appropriately used. At the same time, to make it plain 
that Jehovah is not a different or inferior deity, but that 
the God of grace is one w T ith God the Creator, Jehovah 
Elohim are here combined. In the interview of Eve with 
the serpent (iii. 1-5), however, Elohim is used, as is cus- 
tomary when aliens speak or are spoken to. This shows 
that these names are used discriminatingly, and that the 
employment of one or the other is regulated not by the 
mere habit of different writers, but by their suitableness 
to the subject-matter. 

It is alleged that a different conception of God is pre- 
sented in this section from that which is found in the 
preceding. " Jehovah forms men and beasts, breathes the 
breath of life into man's nostrils, builds a rib into a woman, 
plants a garden, takes a man and^>wte him into it, brings 
the beasts to the man, walks in the cool of the day, speaks 
(iii. 22) as though he were jealous of the man." But as 
Elohim and Jehovah are words of different signification 
and represent the Most High under different aspects of 
his being, they must when used correctly and with regard 
to their proper meaning be associated with different con- 
ceptions of God. This does not argue a diversity of 
writers, but simply that the divine name has each time 
been selected in accordance with the idea to be expressed. 

Elohim is the more general designation of God as the 



32 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH 

Creator and providential Governor of the world and of 
all mankind. Jehovah is his personal name, and that by 
which he has made himself known when entering into 
close relations with men, and particularly the chosen race, 
as the God of revelation and grace. The intimacy thus 
established between the Creator and the creature involves 
a condescension to man and placing himself in accord 
with man, which requires anthropomorphisms for its ex- 
pression and can be made intelligible in no other way. 
There is not the slightest inconsistency between the an- 
thropomorphisms of chs. ii., iii., and the lofty conceptions 
of ch. i., and no ground whatever for assuming that they 
are the ideas of distinct writers. They abound alike in 
the Prophets and in the Psalms, where they are freely in- 
termingled in their devout utterances. With one breath 
the Psalmist speaks of God as knowing the secrets of the 
heart (xliv. 22), and with the next calls upon him, " Awake, 
why sleepest thou? " (ver. 24). Ps. cxxxix. links with the 
most exalted description in human language of the omni- 
presence and omniscience of the infinite God the prayer, 
(ver. 23), " Search me and know my heart," as though it 
was necessary for the Most High to make a careful in- 
vestigation in order to ascertain what is hidden there. 

It should be observed further that the preceding sec- 
tion, with all its grandeur and simplicity, has its anthro- 
pomorphisms likewise. Each creative fiat is uttered 
in human language (i. 3, 6 sqq.). God " called the light 
Di* 1 " (i. 5), giving Hebrew names to that and various other 
objects. He " saw the light that it was good " (i. 4), thus 
inspecting the work of each day and pronouncing upon 
its quality. He uttered a formula of blessing upon the 
various orders of living things (i. 22, 28). He deliberated 
with himself prior to the creation of man (i. 26). Man 
was made "in the image of God," an expression which 
has been wrested to imply a material form. Time was 



PEIMITIVE STATE OF MAN (CH. II. 4-III. 24) 33 

spent upon the work, and this was divided into six suc- 
cessive days, like so many working periods of men. 
When the work was done, God rested on the seventh 
day (ii. 2) ; and thus the week was completed, another 
human measure of time. All this is anthropomorphic. 
He who would speak intelligibly to finite comprehension 
of the infinite God must use anthropomorphisms. The 
difference is not of kind, but of degree. 

MUTUAL RELATION OF THIS AND THE PRECEDING SECTION. 

The inter-relation between these sections is such as to 
show that they cannot be, as the critics claim, from sep- 
arate and independent documents. 

1. The distribution of the matter gives evidence of pre- 
arrangement and cannot be purely accidental. The crea- 
tion of the world, heaven, earth, and sea, with all that 
they contain, is described in ch. i. , and is assumed in ch. 
ii. The latter simply gives details, which were necessa- 
rily passed over in the plan of the former, respecting the 
separate formation of man and woman and fitting up the 
garden for their habitation. Ch. ii. 19 is the only ap- 
parent exception to the specific and limited character of 
this section. But even this is no real exception, since it 
is obvious, as has already been shown, that the formation 
of the beasts and birds is only incidentally mentioned as 
subordinate to the principal statement, and the one of 
chief importance in the connection that God brought 
them to Adam to receive their names. Again, God gave 
names to certain things in ch. i. ; Adam gave names to 
others in chs. ii., iii. ; and these are precisely adjusted to 
one another, neither duplicating nor omitting any. God 
gave names to day and night, heaven, earth, and seas (i. 
5, 8, 10), and to Adam (v. 1). Adam gave names to the 
inferior animals (ii. 20), and to Eve (ii. 23 ; iii. 20). 
3 



34 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH 

2. The title ii. 4a lias been shown to belong to this 
section, and contains explicit reference to the preceding 
of which this is declared to be the sequel. And in the 
body of the section there are numerous allusions to, or 
coincidences with, the preceding or other so-called P sec- 
tions. If the construction of i. 1 adopted by Dillmann 
be correct, there is a striking similarity in structure be- 
tween i. 1, 2 P, and ii. 4b, 5 J, " in the beginning when 
God created, etc., the earth was waste and void," corre- 
sponding to " in the day that Jehovah God made, etc., no 
bush of the field was yet in the earth." J ii. 4b strikingly 
resembles P v. lb in the form of expression ; so do i. 4a 
P and vi. 2a J ; i. 31a, vi. 12a P and viii. 13b J ; "jriS earth, 
without the article, i. 24 P, as ii. 4 J. The paronomasia 
*irni Tin (i. 2), soni ns (i. 22, 28) P recalls in J D^ . . . 

nans (ii. 7), tra . .' . rwfa (ver. 23), nji yp (iv. 14), ns$;i nsj 

(xviii. 27). The first person plural used of God (i. 26 
P), notwithstanding the strictness of Hebrew monotheism 
has its counterpart in J, iii. 22 ; xi. 7. The use of TW$ 
made (iii. 1 J) in reference to the beasts, instead of 1SJ 
formed, as ii. 19 J, is a reminiscence of i. 25 P. dPWl? 
cherubim (iii. 24 J) occurs in the Pentateuch besides only 
in P. 

3. The repeated occurrence of Jehovah Elohim 
throughout chs. ii., iii. is with evident reference to ch. i. 
This combination of divine names occurs nowhere else 
with such regularity and frequency, though it is found 
in a few other passages, e.g., Ex. ix. 30 ; 2 Sam. vii. 22, 
25 ; 1 Chron. xvii. 16, 17 ; Jon. iv. 6 ; cf. 1 Sam. vi. 20. 
This relieves it from Dr. Harper's charge * of being " an 
un-Hebraic expression," and refutes the notion of Hup- 
feld 2 that it is adopted here without reference to ch. i., 
because as the full name of God it was appropriate to 
the state of paradise, from which there was a descent to 

1 Hebraica, vol. i., p. 23. 2 Quellen der Genesis, p. 124. 



PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAIS' (CH. II. 4-III. 24) 35 

Jehovah alone after the fall ; that of Reuss * that it is 
indicative of a special document distinct from both P 
and J, and that of Budde 2 that it arose from the com- 
bination of two documents, one of which used the name 
Jehovah and the other Elohim. In every other passage, 
in which it is found, it denotes that Jehovah the God of 
Israel is likewise Elohim the God of the universe. It 
must have the same meaning here ; it can only be in- 
tended to suggest that Jehovah, now first introduced, is 
identical with Elohim before spoken of in ch. i. This 
is admitted by the critics generally, who seek, however, to 
evade the natural inference of the common authorship of 
both sections by the assumption, which has no other 
basis than the hypothesis that it is adduced to support, 
that Elohim was inserted by R. 

And while it is plain that chs. ii., iii. is thus adjusted to 
ch. i., it is no less clear that i. 1— ii. 3 anticipates what is 
to follow, and purposely prepares the way for it. 

1. The emphasis with which it is repeated at the close 
of each creative act, " and God saw that it was good " (i. 
4, 10, 12, etc.), and affirmed at the end of the whole, " be- 
hold, it was very good" (ver. 31), would be unmeaning 
except as a designed preliminary to the reverse which 
was shortly to follow in the fall (ch. iii.). And this, 
moreover, is necessary to explain the otherwise unac- 
countable declaration (vi. 11 P), that " the earth was cor- 
rupt before God," the mystery of which is unrelieved by 
anything that P contains. 

2. Ch. ii. 3 is evidently preliminary to the fourth com- 
mandment (Ex. xx. 8-11), which again in its terms dis- 
tinctly refers back to i. 1— ii. 3. The ten commandments 
in Ex. xx. are by the critics referred to E, with which, 
according to Dillmann, J was acquainted. He must, 

1 GescMcb.te der heiligen Schriften d. A. T. , p. 257. 
5 Biblische Urgeschichte, pp. 233, 234. 



36 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH 

therefore, have known and believed that the world was 
created in six days, and can have written nothing in 
Gen. ii., iii., inconsistent with this belief. This can only 
be evaded by alleging that the commandments are not 
preserved in Ex. xx. in their genuine original form. Dill- 
mann disputes Ex. xx. 11, because a different reason is 
given for observing the Sabbath in Deut. v. 15. But Ex. 
xx. is the authentic transcript, while Deut. v. is a repro- 
duction with hortatory modifications. This Dillmarm 
admits in other instances; but Delitzsch very properly 
contends that this is no exception. The rejection of the 
verse is simply the usual device of the critics for dispos- 
ing of whatever contravenes their hypothesis. Instead 
of adapting their hypothesis to the phenomena presented 
by the text, they insist upon remodelling the text into 
accordance with their hypothesis. The advantage of 
this method is that the critic can thus triumphantly es- 
tablish whatever he sets out to prove. 



CAIN AND ABEL — CAIN'S DESCENDANTS (CH. IV.). 

It is said that vs. 17-24 is at variance with the rest of 
the chapter, and with the J document generally in re- 
spect both to the life of Cain and the fact of the deluge. 
It is hence claimed that extracts from separate documents 
have here been combined. 

While Cain is represented in vs. 11, 14, as condemned 
for the murder of his brother to be a fugitive and a wan- 
derer in the earth, it is affirmed that, according to ver. 17, 
he led a settled life and built a city. But (1) it then re- 
mains to be accounted for, if these stories are in such 
direct antagonism, that K could have put them to- 
gether without explanation or remark, as though he per- 
ceived no conflict between them and had no idea that his 
readers would suspect any. (2) The fact is that Cain was 



CAIN AND ABEL (CH. IV.) 37 

expelled from the seat of God's presence, the society of 
man, and cultivated land, to the wild steppes of the land 
of Nod (so called from 1J wanderer, in his sentence), 
equivalent to the nomad region. The Hebrew word for 
city is in usage broad enough to cover a nomadic encamp- 
ment (Num. xiii. 19 ; 2 Kin. xvii. 9). The dread lest his 
murder might be avenged -(ver. 14), betrayed itself afresh 
in his constructing such a defence for himself and his 
family, which subsequently may have grown from these 
small beginnings 1 into much larger proportions. The 
builders of the first huts on the site of Chicago may be 
said to have laid the foundations of the city. (3) Cain 
had previously been a " tiller of the ground." That he 
continued to be an agriculturist is certainly not stated in 
the text and is in fact inconsistent with it. The arts de- 
veloped by his descendants are those of nomads, viz., 
pasturage, music, and metallurgy, but not the cultivation 
of the soil. Jabal was " the father of such as dwell in 
tents and have cattle," in a very different sense from that 
in which Abel was a " keeper of sheep " at his paternal 
home. (4) The explicit reference in iv. 24, where Lamech 
speaks of Cain being avenged sevenfold, to the pledge 
which the Lord had given him in ver. 15, shows very 
plainly that both belong to the same continuous narra- 
tive. Dillmann can find no escape from this but either 
by putting the cart before the horse and supposing the 
allusion to be the other way, and that ver. 15 was shaped 
into conformity with ver. 24, or else by ejecting ver. 15a 
from the text as an addition by E. Budde ("Biblische 
Urgeschichte," pp. 184, 185) strangely imagines that the 
language of Lamech gave rise to the story of Cain's 
murder. 

1 Observe the form of statement in the Hebrew, which is significant, 
«"t3^ T^!! "he was building a city," as a work in progress, not "he 
built it," as though it were completed by him. 



38 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH 

A still more surprising inference from vs. 17-24 is that 
the writer knew nothing of the interruption of human 
history by the deluge. This inference hangs by a very 
slender thread. As the invention of various arts is here 
traced to the sons of Lamech in the line of Cain, the 
conclusion is drawn that as the arts have been perpetu- 
ated, so must the race have been that invented them ; 
which is an evident non sequitur. As though an art in- 
vented by one race of men could not be adopted by an- 
other race, and the knowledge of it be kept alive though 
the original inventors had passed away. That the race 
of Cain was extinct seems to be implied by the fact that 
the genealogy breaks off as it does, without being con- 
tinued, like every other genealogy in Genesis, to tribes or 
persons existing in the writer's own day. "Wellhausen in- 
trepidly suggests that Cain is a collective name for the 
Kenites, as in Num. xxiv. 22, who are thus traced up to 
the origin of mankind ; a piece of historical criticism akin 
to that which finds an allusion to South America in " the 
gold of Parvaim " (2 Chron. iii. 6), since Parvaim is the 
dual of Peru. 

Wellhausen maintains that this section, in which the 
arts of building cities, care of cattle, music, and metal- 
lurgy are traced to the godless descendants of Cain is a 
sequel to the narrative of the fall in chs. ii., iii., in which 
the tree of knowledge bears forbidden fruit. The com- 
mon idea in both, he claims, is that knowledge is peril- 
ous, and Jehovah jealously restrains man from its posses- 
sion ; advancing civilization betokens growing corruption. 
These two sections, pervaded by this idea, he sunders 
from the J of the rest of Genesis, and supposes that they 
belong to some antecedent document, J', which J has here 
incorporated in his own production. Dillmann agrees 
with him that the first half of ch. iv., containing the 
story of Cain and Abel, is by a different writer from the 



CAIN AND ABEL (CH. TV.) 39 

second half of the chapter, containing the account of 
Cain's descendants ; but insists that it is the former and 
not the latter which is by the author of the narrative of 
the fall and is its continuation. And he points in evi- 
dence of this to ver. 7b, which is repeated from iii. 16b ; 
the mention of Eden (ver. 16) ; the identity of aim, viz., to 
trace the growth of sin, the beginning of which is de- 
scribed in ch. iii., and the sameness of the diction as 
shown in a number of words and expressions common 
to vs. 1-16 and chs. ii., iii., as well as other passages re- 
ferred to J. On the other hand, Budde ("Biblische 
Urgeschichte," pp. 220, 221) points out coincidences 
in expression between vs. 17-24 and various J passages. 
Whereupon Dillmann concludes that if any significance 
is to be attached to these coincidences, the author of chs. 
ii., iii. may himself have introduced vs. 17-24 from its 
original source into his own document, regardless of the 
discrepancy in ver. 17, not so much with a view to the 
invention of arts as the development of crime as shown 
in Lamech's impious speech. As it has already been 
shown that there is no inconsistency between ver. 17 and 
the preceding verses, the entire critical structure based on 
that assumption collapses. Dillmann is right in link- 
ing chs. ii., iii. with iv. 1-16, and Wellhausen in linking 
those chapters with vs. 17-24. And there is but one 
author for the whole. 

MARKS OF J. 

Dillmann finds the following points in common between 
chs. ii., iii., and the diction of vs. 1-16. 

1. TVa^X ground (vs. 2, 3, 10, 12). See ch. xxviii. 10- 
22, Marks' of J, No. 4. 

2. rntC field (ver. 8). See chs. ii., iii., Marks of J, No. 2. 
This word is by no means peculiar to J. It occurs re- 



40 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH 

peatedly also in P, e.g., xxiii. 9, 11, 13, 17, 19, 20, and 

often elsewhere. 

3. raian *X2$ till the ground (vs. 2, 12, as ii. 5 ; iii. 23). 
As the phrase occurs nowhere else in the Hexateuch, its 
absence from P sections is to be explained in the same 
manner as its absence from all the rest of those that are 
assigned to J. No argument for a diversity of documents 
can be derived from it. 

4. ttha drive out (ver. 14, as iii. 24). See ch. xxi. 1-21, 
Marks'of E, No. 5. 

5. ^r6nb not to (ver. 15, as iii. 11). See chs. xviii., xix., 
Marks of J, No. 14. 

6. fintf W8 tliou art cursed (ver. 11, as iii. 14). This 
verb is always referred either to J, E, or D, there being 
no occasion for its employment in any of the passages as- 
cribed to P. 

7. The questions asked by the Lobd (vs. 9, 10) are 
similar to those in iii. 9, 13. These various points of 
similarity between vs. 1-16 and chs. ii., iii. create a strong 
presumption that they are from the same writer, as Dill- 
mann urges, but afford no proof that he is distinct from 
the author of the passages referred to P. 

He also finds the following expressions in vs. 1-16, 
which recur in J passages elsewhere : 

8. Jppin in the adverbial sense again (vs. 2, 12). This 
is uniformly referred to J or E, except in Lev. xxvi. 18. 

9. ib mn he angry (vs. 5, 6). See chs. xviii., xix., Marks 
of J, No. 30. 

10. ns JlSD open the mouth (ver. 11). This occurs but 
twice besides in the Hexateuch (Num. xvi. 30, J ; Deut. 
xi. 6 D). 

Budde finds the following indications of J in vs. 17- 
24. 

11. ^ beget (ver. 18). See chs. vi.-ix., Marks of P, No. 
20 ; also under ch. x. 



CAIN AND ABEL (CH. IV.) 41 

12. ton D| (ver. 22), she also. See ch. xxii. 20-24, 
Marks of ' J, No. 3. 

13. TTIS Dflh (ver. 21) owd to brother's name, as x. 25. 
These are the only two instances in the Hexateuch in 
which a second son is introduced by this particular for- 
mula. 

The divine names are appropriately used. It is to Je- 
hovah, who had given her the promise of offspring, that 
Eve gratefully ascribes the bestowment of her first child 
(ver. 1). To Jehovah offerings are brought by Cain and 
Abel (vs. 3, 4). It is Jehovah, who condescendingly re- 
monstrates with Cain and explains to him the defect in 
his offering and how it may be remedied (vs. 6, 7). It is 
Jehovah again, the defender of his own people, who ar- 
raigns Cain for his awful crime, and while sparing his 
guilty life banishes him from his presence (vs. 9-16). It 
is Jehovah upon whose name the pious race of Seth and 
Enosh devoutly call, iv. 26. 

It might at first sight appear surprising that Eve, who 
had recognized the grace of Jehovah in the birth of Cain, 
should speak of Seth as coming to her from Eloliim (ver. 
25). But there is a reason for this. The good gift of 
God is set in contrast with the evil deed of man. " Elo- 
him hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel ; 
for Cain slew him." It is to be observed that Elohim 
here occurs in a J section ; so that the critics themselves 
must admit that it is discriminatingly used, and that there 
is a special propriety in its employment. 



II 

THE GENEEATIONS OF ADAM (CH. V. 1-VI. 8) 
ADAM TO NOAH (CH. Y.) 

Those who insist upon regarding the entire antedilu- 
vian history of the Bible as mythical, and on a par with 
the early myths of heathen nations, labor, though with 
small success, to find ancient parallels to the genealogy 
contained in this chapter. The nearest approach to it is 
the ten antediluvian kings of Chaldean story with reigns on 
an average of 43,000 years each, as reported by Berosus. 
Whether Lenormant is correct or not in giving them an as- 
tronomical interpretation, their names plainly stand in 
no relation to the names in this Scriptural list. The 
sole point of resemblance is in the number ten ; and this 
is vague enough. Others have sought to find meanings 
in the names mentioned in this chapter, which might 
suggest the idea which lay at the basis of the genealogy 
and account for its formation. They are interpreted by 
Boettcher 1 as indicative of the successive stages by which 
the human race advanced in civilization ; by Ewald 2 as 
in part at least the names of various deities ; and by 
Knobel as representing the Western Asiatics, while the 
descendants of Cain denote the Chinese and other popu- 
lations of Eastern Asia. It is evident, however, that in 
the intent of the sacred historian it simply traces the line 
of descent from Adam to Noah in the pious line of Seth. 

1 Exegetisch-kritische Aehrenlese, pp. 4, 5. 

2 Geschichte Israels, 2d edit., i., p. 357. 



ADAM TO NOAH (CH. V.) 43 

Buclde's * inference from the names Jared (descent) and 
Methuselah (man of weapon) that while the first five in 
the line were good men, the last five, with the exception 
of Enoch and Noah, were wicked, rests on purely fanci- 
ful interpretations of the names. 

The longevity attributed to the antediluvians has been 
declared to be inconsistent with physiological laws ; but 
in our ignorance of the extent to which the conditions 
affecting human life may have been modified, such an as- 
sertion is unwarranted. 



THE CAENTTE AND SETHITE GENEALOGIES. 

There is a remarkable similarity in the names of the 
descendants of Seth in ch. v. and those of Cain, iv. 17, 
18, as shown in the following lists : 



Adam 


Adam 


Seth 




Enosh 




Kenan 


Cain 


Mahalalel 


Enoch 


Jared 


Irad 


Enoch 


Melmjael 


Methuselah 


Methushael 


Lamech 


Lamech 


Noah 





The six names in each column, beginning with Kenan 
or Cain, are strikingly alike ; and if Mahalalel be trans- 
posed with Enoch, they will follow each other in the 
same identical order. It is natural to conclude that this 
cannot be altogether casual. Buttmann 2 inferred that 
these are variants of one and the same genealogy as pre- 
served in two related but hostile tribes. In its original 
intent it enumerated the early ancestors of the human 

1 Biblische Urgescliichte, p. 96. 2 Mythologus, i., pp. 170-172. 



44 THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM 

race sprung from its first progenitor, who in one form of 
the myth was called Adam and in the other Enosh, each 
having the same signification (man). The two were sub- 
sequently harmonized by making Enosh the grandson of 
Adam. The names differed sufficiently for the race of 
Seth to regard the Cainite tradition as distinct from 
their own and descriptive of a godless race, and so Cain 
was held to be the ancestor not of all mankind, but of 
this hated tribe. 

The majority of critics accept this identification of the 
two genealogies, and have drawn other consequences 
from it. Dillmann contended that the redactor has trans- 
posed the story of Cain and Abel (iv. 1-16) from its true 
position later in the history. Cain was not the son of 
Adam, but belongs where Kenan stands in the geneal- 
ogy (v. 9), with whom he is identical ; or, as he has mod- 
ified his opinion in the latest edition of his " Commen- 
tary," Cain and Abel were not the only sons of Adam, but 
were born subsequent to Seth. He thinks it strange 
that the distinction between tillers of the ground and 
keepers of sheep, and between bloody and unbloody offer- 
ings, should be found in the first children of primeval 
man ; and that the advance from the first sin to fratri- 
cide should be made so soon. This only shows that his 
opinion differs from that of the author of the narrative. 
He appeals also to the words of Cain (iv. 14), " Every 
one that findeth me shall slay me," which imply a consid- 
erable population ; but he forgets how greatly the de- 
scendants of Adam may have multiplied by the time that 
he attained his one hundred and thirtieth year (v. 3, cf. 
iv. 25). "Wellhausen goes so far as to identify Abel with 
Jabal (iv. 20), " the father of such as have cattle." But — 

1. That Wellhausen's wild conjecture expressly contra- 
dicts the statements of the history is obvious. And it 
requires not a little critical manipulation to cany through 



ADAM TO NOAH (CH. V.) 45 

the hypothesis of Dillmann. In iv. 25 the word " again,*' 
in the first clause, and the whole of the last clause after 
the word 3T\T seed, viz., "another instead of Abel, for Cain 
slew him," must be thrown out of the text as an interpo- 
lation by R. The statement (iv. 1) that Cain was the son 
of Adam and Eve must be gotten out of the way, if he is 
to be made the same as Kenan the son of Enosh (v. 9). 
And R must have reversed the order of the statements 
in the chapter for no very intelligible reason. 

2. The distinctness of these genealogies is expressly 
affirmed. That in iv. 17, 18, J, professes to record the 
descendants of Cain after his murder of Abel and his re- 
moval to the land of Nod, while that in ch. v., P, records 
the descendants of Seth, a different son of Adam. The 
critics cannot consistently claim that this is merely a 
variant representation by J and P of what is in fact the 
same thing, but which R has erroneously set down as 
two quite separate lines of descent. For by their own 
hypothesis J (iv. 25, 26) traces the line " Adam, Seth, 
Enosh " precisely as is done by P (v. 3-6) ; and v. 29 is 
attributed to J as another fragment of the same line. 
From this the critics infer that the document J must have 
contained a complete genealogy from Adam to Noah par- 
allel to that of P, though the greater portion of it has 
been omitted by R as superfluous repetition. Now these 
broken and scattered links of J utter the same voice with 
the full record of P, that Noah and his father Lamech 
were descended not from Cain but from Seth. Both 
these genealogies in substantially their present form 
were, therefore, according to the critics contained in the 
document of J, who in this followed the sources whence 
he derived his history. This is a confession that the 
same writer can have recorded them both ; consequently 
their presence in the existing text of Genesis affords no 
argument for critical partition. The unity of Genesis is 



46 THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM 

not affected by the alleged conversion of one genealogy 
into two, which on the critics' own theory mnst have oc- 
curred, if at all, in the course of its oral transmission 
prior to the writing of the book of Genesis, or even of 
the document J, which is held to be one of its oldest 
constituents. 

And in regard to this it would appear that a sweeping 
conclusion is drawn from very slender premises. Sup- 
pose that we are unable to account for the coincidence 
of names, does it follow that the persons represented by 
them never existed ? Delitzsch directs attention to the 
fact that but two names are the same in the entire series, 
viz., Enoch and Lamech : and in both cases statements 
are made which show that the persons are quite dis- 
tinct. The first of these names means initiation or con- 
secratio?i, and might very well be applied in the former 
sense to the first son of Cain born in exile, as subse- 
quently to the first-born of Reuben (Gen. xlvi. 9), and in 
the latter sense to that holy man who walked with God 
and was not, for God took him. The meaning of the 
name Lamech is unknown ; but the identification of the 
persons so called is forbidden by the speeches preserved 
from them, which reflect totally diverse characters. Cain 
and Kenan, Irad and Jared are distinct not merely in 
their form but in their radical letters and probable sig- 
nification. So is the second and determining member in 
the compound names Methushael and Methuselah. Ma- 
halalel, praise of God, which stands over against Mehu- 
jael, smitten of God, may suggest that the descendants of 
Cain have names with a bad meaning and those of Seth 
have names with a good meaning. 

The meaning of most of these ancient names cannot 
now be ascertained. Several of them do not appear to 
be Hebrew. And it is doubtful whether even those 
which simulate Hebrew forms may not be merely modi- 



ADAM TO NOAH (CH. V.) 47 

fications of some unknown original to adapt them better 
to the Hebrew ear. It is not surprising if these parallel 
lists of unintelligible names should undergo changes in 
their transmission through long centuries, and if they 
should, whether with or without design, be gradually con- 
formed to one another. The disposition to produce like- 
sounding contrasts, as in Isa v. 7 BSETa . . . HBTBia, 
rip^S . . . rt£^ or by slight modifications as of Beel- 
zebub into Beelzebul, or Shechem into Sychar, to give a 
different turn to the meaning of words, may easily have 
been operative. The LXX. has two more names alike in 
both lists than the Hebrew, which indicates a tendency 
in such cases to come into a closer approximation in the 
course of repeated transcription. The Mohammedan 
names for Cain and Abel are Kabil and Habil ; see Sale's 
Koran, note to ch. v. 30. 



DUPLICATE STATEMENTS. 

Dillmann thinks that the composite character of the 
book of Genesis is shown more plainly in the duplicate 
mention of the birth of Seth and Enosh (iv. 25, 26 ; v. 3- 
6) than anywhere else. Why should the same writer 
thus repeat himself ? The supplementary critics, as Tuch, 
held that J inserted iv. 25, 26, in order to effect the tran- 
sition from the preceding account of Cain and his de- 
scendants to that of the line of Seth. The more recent 
critics follow Hupfeld, who regarded these verses, as to- 
gether with v. 29, the remnants of J's genealogy from 
Adam to Noah parallel to that of P in ch. v. B, while 
omitting the greater portion as superfluous repetition, saw 
fit to retain these three verses because of the additional 
information which they convey. He inserted v. 29 in 
the body of P's genealogy, but preserved iv. 25, 26 dis- 
tinct. Now it is difficult to see why the same motive, be 



48 THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM 

it what it might, which could determine E not to blend 
iv. 25, 26 with the corresponding verses of ch. v. as is 
done with v. 29, might not be similarly influential with 
the original writer. Some reasons for such a separate 
statement naturally offer themselves. 

1. These closing verses of ch. iv. are necessary to the 
proper understanding of ch. v. "While the insertion of 
those statements in this chapter would have been confus- 
ing and would have marred its symmetry, it was impor- 
tant to set v. 3 in its true light in relation to iv. 1, 2. 
The critics say that they are contradictory, since they 
infer from v. 3 that according to P Seth was the first 
child of Adam. But this is not necessarily implied any 
more than Ex. ii. 1, 2 implies that Moses was the oldest 
child of his parents, though ver. 4 declares the contrary, 
not to speak of Ex. vii. 7. To make the matter perfectly 
plain to the reader, iv. 25 distinctly states that Seth was 
born after the murder of Abel. And then iv. 26 was 
added to indicate the character of the godly race of Seth 
in contrast with the ungodly race of Cain, and thus pre- 
pare the way for the sparing of Noah and his house 
when the rest of mankind perished in the flood. 

2. Another reason for putting these statements at the 
close of ch. iv. grows out of the original plan of the book 
of Genesis and its division into successive sections each 
in a manner complete in itself and introduced by its own 
special title. The section ii. 4-ch. iv. had recorded a 
constant descent from bad to worse, the sin of our first 
parents, their expulsion from paradise, the murder of 
Abel, Cain's descendants reaching in Lamech the climax 
of boastful and unrestrained violence. That the section 
might not be suffered to end in unrelieved gloom a 
brighter outlook is added at the close, precisely as is 
done at the end of the next section in vi. 8. Seth is 
substituted for Abel, whom Cain slew, and instead of 



ADAM TO NOAH (CH. V.) 49 

piety perishing with murdered Abel it reaches a new de- 
velopment in the days of Enosh. 

The whole arrangement bears evidence of adaptation 
and careful thought, and is suggestive of one author, not 
the combination of separate compositions prepared with 
no reference to each other. 

A further indication of the same sort, implying the 
original unity of these chapters, is their correspondence 
with the general plan of Genesis in respect to genealo- 
gies. Uniformly the divergent lines are first traced be- 
fore proceeding with the principal line of descent leading 
to the chosen people. In ch. x. the various nations of 
mankind sprung from the three sons of Noah ; then (xi. 
10 sqq.) the line from Shem to Abram. Nahor's descend- 
ants (xxii. 20 sqq.), those of Keturah (xxv. 1 sqq.), and of 
Ishmael (vs. 13 sqq.), before those of Isaac (vs. 19 sqq.). 
Those of Esau (xxxvi. 1 sqq.) before those of Jacob 
(xxxvii. 2 sqq.). In like manner the degenerate and 
God-forsaken race of Cain is traced (iv. 17 sqq.) before 
proceeding with that of Seth (ch. v.). 

PKIMEVAL CHBONOLOGY. 

It should be remarked here that no computation of 
time is ever built in the Bible upon this or any other 
genealogy. There is no summation of the years from 
Adam to Noah, or from Noah to Abraham, as there is of 
the abode in Egypt (Ex. xii. 40), or of the period from 
the exodus to the building of the temple (1 Kin. vi. 1). 
And as the received chronologies and the generally ac- 
cepted date of the flood and of the creation of the world 
are derived from computations based on these genealo- 
gies, it ought to be remembered that this is a very pre- 
carious mode of reckoning. This genealogy could only 
afford a safe estimate of time on the assumption that no 
4 



50 THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM 

links are missing and that every name in the line of descent 
has been recorded. But this we have no right to take 
for granted. The analogy of other biblical genealogies 
is decidedly against it. Yery commonly unimportant 
names are omitted ; sometimes several consecutive names 
are dropped together. No one has a right, therefore, to 
denominate a primeval chronology so constructed the 
biblical chronology and set it in opposition to the de- 
ductions of science, and thence conclude that there is a 
conflict between the Bible and science. See the article 
on this subject in the Bibliotheca Sacra for April, 1890. 



MARKS OP P. 

Dillmann finds the following indications of P in this 
chapter. 

1. The back reference from vs. 1-3 to i. 26-28. But 
it is linked to the same extent and in precisely the same 
manner with J sections. The genealogy is traced (ver. 
32) to Noah and his three sons, all of whom are similarly 
named in ix. 18 J ; ver. 29 refers back to iii. 17 J. The 
critics say that ver. 29 is an insertion by B. They say 
so because their hypothesis requires it and for no other 
reason. It might just as well be said that B inserted 
vs. 1, 2, and modified ver. 3. Both passages stand on 
the same footing, and should be dealt with in the same 
way. 

2. The formality and precision of statement. This is 
the uniform style of the genealogies leading to the chosen 
race as distinguished from those belonging to the diver- 
gent lines, whether attributed to P or J. 

3. tHyyr\ generations (ver. 1). See chs. vi.-ix., Marks 
of P, No. 1. 

4. fiWT likeness (vs. 1, 3). See ch. i. 1-ii. 3. 

5. Dbs image (ver. 3). This word occurs here and 



SONS OF GOD AND DAUGHTERS OF MEN (CH. VI. 1-8) 51 

ix. 6, with specific allusion to i. 26, 27 ; and besides in 
the Hexateuch only Num. xxxiii. 52 J. 

6. FQpEH "DT male and female (ver. 2). See chs. vi.-ix., 
Marks of P, No. 12. 

7. Y»bi«1 fog^ (vs. 3 sqq.). See chs. vi.-ix., Marks of P, 
No. 20.' 

8. D^n'bxrrna ^nnn walk with God (vs. 22, 24). 
This phrase occurs besides vi. 9 P, and nowhere else in 
the Old Testament. , The nearest approach to it is walk 
before God (xvii. 1 P ; xxiv. 40 J ; xlviii. 15 E). 

The assertion that according to this writer " this first 
age of the world was still a time of rest and primitive 
perfection, into which corruption did not penetrate till 
toward its close " (vi. 9 sqq.), is gratuitous and un- 
founded. It has no basis whatever in the sacred text. 
The universal corruption described in vi. 11, 12, finds its 
only explanation in the fall of man (ch. iii.), and the sub- 
sequent development and spread of evil (ch. iv.; vi. 1-8), 
and proves conclusively that these passages cannot be 
separated and assigned to distinct sources. 

The names of God are appropriately used in this chap- 
ter. Elohim is rendered necessary in ver. 1 by its refer- 
ence to i. 27, and Jehovah in v. 29 by its reference to 
iii. 17. Elohim is required in vs. 22, 24, since walking 
with God is a general designation of piety as contrasted 
with what is earthly and sensual. 

THE SONS OF OOD AND THE DAUGHTEKS OF MEN (CH. VI. 

1-8) 

In regard to the paragraph Gen. vi. 1-8, the most re- 
cent critics have fallen back upon the position taken up 
by fragmentists, such as Vater, who affirmed that it was 
not only disconnected with the genealogy in ch. v., 
which precedes, and with the account of the flood which 



52 THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM 

succeeds it (vi. 9 sqq.), but that it falls apart itself into 
two unrelated paragraphs (vs. 1-4) concerning the pri- 
meval giants, J', and (vs. 5-8) the divine purpose to 
destroy the world and save Noah, J. 

But the fact is that there is the most intimate connec- 
tion throughout* and this passage can neither itself be 
split into fragments nor sundered from the context in 
which it stands. The genealogy in ch. v. conducts the 
line of descent by regular steps from Adam to Noah, 
pausing here because there was something to record 
about Noah before proceeding further, and departing 
from the analogy of the rest of the chapter by naming 
three sons of Noah instead of one, as in the case of every 
preceding patriarch, because they were all concerned in 
what was to follow. The closing verse of ch. v. is thus 
directly preparatory for the account of the deluge which 
comes after. Further, this verse contains the statement 
of Noah's age at the birth of his children, but the length 
of his subsequent life and the duration of the whole, 
which had been regularly given in the case of preceding 
patriarchs, are here wanting. These are, however, sup- 
plied (vii. 6) by the statement of Noah's age at the com- 
ing of the flood, and then, after the account of the deluge 
had been given and all that was to be said further about 
Noah, there follows in the identical forms of the geneal- 
ogy (ch. v.) the time that Noah lived after the flood and 
the total of his years (ix. 28, 29). This is a clear indica- 
tion that this genealogy, instead of being broken off and 
terminated at the close of ch. v., is simply enlarged by 
the insertion of the narrative of the deluge, which is in- 
corporated within it. After this the divergent lines of 
descent are introduced (ch. x.), and then the main gene- 
alogy is resumed, and proceeds (xi. 10-26) until it 
reaches the name of Abram, when it pauses, or rather is 
enlarged again, to receive the history of the patriarchs. 



SONS OF GOD AND DAUGHTERS OF MEN (CH. VI. 1-8) 53 

Again, vi. 1-8 is formally linked to what precedes in 
the original Hebrew by Yav Consecutive, and by the 
statement of men's beginning to multiply on the face of 
the earth, which sums up the substance of ch. v. in a 
few words, the expansion of the race being indicated by 
the statement repeated in the case of each patriarch, 
" He begat sons and daughters." * It is further appropri- 
ate to the connection as preparing the way for what fol- 
lows, by explaining the universality of the corruption 
which was the moral cause of the flood. This is the 
subject of vs. 1-4, which is accordingly intimately re- 
lated to vs. 5-8, and leads directly to it, making that 
clear which would otherwise be quite unaccountable. 

The sons of God (vs. 2, 4) are not angels nor demi- 
gods, 1 whose intermarriage with the daughters of men/ 
brought forth a race of monsters or superhuman beings. 

1. This purely mythological conceit Avas foisted upon 
the passage in certain apocryphal books like the book 
of Enoch ; also by Philo and Josephus, who were misled 
by the analogy of ancient heathen fables. But it was 
repelled by the great body of Jewish and Christian in- 
terpreters from the earliest periods, though it has been 
taken up again by a number of modern scholars. It is 
assumed by them that a transgression of angels is here 
spoken of, though the existence of angels has not been 
before mentioned nor in any way referred to in the pre- 
vious part of the book of Genesis. This view has no 
sanction whatever in Scripture. Jude, vs. 6, 7, and 2 

1 The Targums and some other Jewish authorities understand by 
" sons of God" nobles, men of high rank or official station, who in Ps. 
lxxxii. 6 are denominated "sons of the Most High" ; and by " daugh- 
ters of men " women of inferior position, as in Ps. xlix. 2 ; lxii. 9, 
&"!!* ^Ifl are contrasted with E^JS "03 as men of low degree with men 
of high degree. But no such contrast is suggested here ; and the in- 
termarriage of different classes in society is nowhere represented as dis- 
pleasing to God or provoking the divine judgment. 



54 THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM 

Pet. ii. 4 have been tortured into sustaining it ; but they 
contain no reference to this passage whatever. And 
there is no analogy anywhere in the Bible for the adop- 
tion by the sacred writers of mythological notions in 
general, or for the idea in particular of the intermarriage 
of angels and men. Sexual relations are nowhere in 
Scripture attributed to superior beings. There is no 
suggestion that angels are married or are given in mar- 
riage ; the contrary is expressly declared (Matt. xxii. 30). 
Male and female deities have no place in the Bible, ex- 
cept as a heathen notion which is uniformly reprobated. 
The Hebrew language does not even possess a word for 
" goddess." The whole conception of sexual life, as con- 
nected with God or angels, is absolutely foreign to He- 
brew thought, and for that reason cannot be supposed to 
be countenanced here. 

2. The sole foundation for this mistaken interpreta- 
tion is the allegation that " sons of God " must, accord- 
ing to Scriptural usage, mean " angels ; " which, how- 
ever, is not the case. Even if that were the more usual 
and obvious interpretation of the phrase, which it is not, 
the connection in which it stands would compel us to 
seek a different meaning for it here, if that were possible, 
and one which would be compatible with marriage. 
" Sons of God " OVi'btfn *»!fi is a poetic designation of 
angels occurring three times in the book of Job (i. 6 ; ii. 
1 ; xxxviii. 7) ; and a like expression D^btf ^DS is found 
twice in the Psalms in the same sense (xxix. 1 ; Ixxxix. 
6). Daniel iii. 25, *pnbsH ^2 " son of the gods," has also 
been appealed to ; but this has nothing to do with the 
case, as it is the language of Nebuchadnezzar, and repre- 
sents a genuine heathen conception. Angels are no- 
where so called in the Pentateuch, nor anywhere in the 
Bible but in the few passages already referred to. 

3. On the contrary, " sons of God " is a familiar des- 



SONS OF GOD AND DAUGHTEKS OF MEN (CH. VI. 1-8) 55 

ignation of the chosen race, the worshippers of the true 
God. Moses is instructed to say to Pharaoh (Ex. iv. 
22), Thus saith Jehovah, Israel is my son : let my son 
go. So Deut. xiv. 1, Ye are the sons of Jehovah your 
God. In the Song of Moses (Deut. xxxii.) this idea of 
sonship occurs repeatedly. Yer. 5, They have dealt 
corruptly with him, they are not his sons. Yer. 6, Is 
Jehovah not thy father ? Yer. 18, He is called the Kock 
that begat thee, the God that gave thee birth : and the 
people are called (ver. 19) his sons and his daughters. 
Hos. i. 10, Ye are the sons of the living God ; xi. 1, Is- 
rael is called God's son. Isaiah in repeated passages 
speaks of the people as God's sons (Isa. i. 2 ; xliii. 6 ; 
xlv. 11). In Jer. xxxi. 20 the Lord calls Ephraim his 
dear son, his favorite child. In Ps. lxxiii. 15 the pious 
are called " the generation of God's children." And, on 
the other hand, the worshippers of false gods are called 
their children. Thus (Num. xxi. 29) the people of Moab 
are spoken of as the sons and daughters of Chemosh. 
Mai. ii. 11, an Israelite who had taken a foreign wife is 
said to have married the daughter of a strange god. It 
is in entire accord with this Biblical usage that the pious 
race, who adhered to the true worship of God, are called 
the sons of God in contrast with the descendants of 
Cain, who had gone out from the presence of Jehovah, 
and abandoned the seat of his worship entirely. 

4. And this brings the verses before us into corre- 
spondence with numerous other passages of the Penta- 
teuch in its practical aim. The law of Moses again and 
again forbids intermarriage with the Canaanites lest they 
should contaminate Israel and seduce them to idolatry. 
The book of Genesis inculcates the same lesson when it 
depicts Abraham's concern about the marriage of Isaac 
(xxiv. 3, 4), and that of Isaac and Rebekah about the 
marriage of Jacob (xxvii. 46 ; xxviii. 1, 2), the distress 



56 THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM 

which Esau's marriage caused his parents (xxvi. 34, 35 ; 
xxviii. 6-8), and the trials of Jacob's family at Shechem 
(ch. xxxiv). If the verses before us point out the ruin- 
ous consequences of the intermarriage of the godly race 
with the ungodly, it furthers an aim which the writer of 
Genesis and of the Pentateuch evidently had greatly at 
heart. A warning not to intermarry with angels would 
be altogether unmeaning. 

5. This explanation of how it came to pass that the 
pious portion of the race were infected with the uni- 
versal degeneracy is not only appropriate in the connec- 
tion, but is necessary to account for the universality of 
the following judgment, which is repeatedly and largely 
insisted upon. This is an integral and essential part of 
the narrative, the omission of which would leave an un- 
filled chasm. The primal source of human corruption 
had been germinally shown in the fall (ch. iii.) ; the 
degeneracy of the Cainites had been traced (ch. iv.). 
Nothing but good, however, had thus far been said of the 
race of Seth (iv. 26 ; v. 22, 24, 29). That this pious race 
were themselves involved in the degeneracy which had 
overtaken the rest of mankind, is here stated for the first 
time. But this is necessary to explain why the whole 
race of man, with the exception of a single family, should 
be doomed to destruction. 

6. The explanation now given is further confirmed by 
ver. 3, where sentence is passed for the offence described 
in the preceding verse. In what the offence consisted, 
if the sons of God were angels, is not very obvious. It 
is not illicit intercourse which is described; the terms 
used denote lawful marriage. But if it was wrong for 
the angels to marry women, the angels surely were the 
chief offenders ; and yet no penalty is denounced upon 
angels. The divine sentence falls exclusively upon men. 
There is such an obvious incongruity in this that 



SONS OF GOD AND DAUGHTERS OF MEN (CH. VI. 1-8) 57 

Budde 1 insists that ver. 3 is an interpolation and does not 
belong in this connection, bnt has been transferred from 
the account of the fall of our first parents. The incon- 
gruity that is alleged, however, does not show the verse 
to be an interpolation, but simply that the mythological 
sense which has been given to the passage is false. 

7. The word Nephilim, occurring ver. 4, has given rise 
to the strange deduction that this passage originally 
stood in no connection with the account of the flood ; 
that the author of it in fact knew of no such event. The 
only foundation for this inference is that the same word 
is found again in Num. xiii. 33, in the evil report of the 
spies respecting Canaan. If the Nephilim here spoken 
of were still in existence in the days of Moses, how could 
there have been a catastrophe in the interval which swept 
away all mankind except the family of Noah ? But this 
rests upon the unproved assumption that the Nephilim 
of the book of Numbers were lineal descendants of those 
of Genesis. And on this uncertain basis the author or 
compiler of Genesis is charged with the absurdity of in- 
troducing a passage as preliminary to the deluge, which 
by its very terms implies that no deluge had taken place. 
Could he have so grossly mistaken its meaning ? Or is 
it not possible that modern critics may have put a wrong 
interpretation on these isolated verses ? The mere fact 
that the same term, " Nephilim," is applied both to ante- 
diluvians and to Canaanites is a very slender premise on 
which to base so extraordinary a conclusion. The word 
is obscure in its meaning and its derivation. It is more 
probably an appellative or descriptive term than a gen- 
tile noun. The LXX. translates it "giants;" other old 
Greek versions render it " assailants " or " violent men." 
It does not occur again in the narrative of the conquest 
of Canaan, as though it were the proper name of a tribe, 

1 Biblische Urgesahiclite , p. 30. 



58 THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM 

but only in the report of the spies, whose excited imagi- 
nation could best express the terror inspired by these 
men of great stature and powerful frame by saying that 
they were the old giants revived. 

It is further to be observed that the Nephilim are not 
said to have sprung from the union of the sons of God 
with the daughters of men. The statement is that the 
Nephilim were in the earth prior to these intermarriages, 
and also after these intermarriages had taken place. But 
it is not said that they were in any case the fruit of such 
marriages. The critics, however, tell us that though this 
is not expressly stated, it is implied. This is by no 
means necessarily so. But suppose it to be granted ; the 
mythological interpretation is an impossibility neverthe- 
less. The idea that the Nephilim were a superhuman 
\race sprung from the union of angels with the daughters 
/of men is completely nullified by the explicit declaration 
(that the Nephilim existed before such marriages took 
place as well as after. No new species of creature can 
| be intended, therefore, whose origin is traced to the in- 
termarriage of different orders of beings. 

8. It is objected that "the daughters of men" must 
have the same universal sense in ver. 2 as in ver. 1 ; and 
that the contrast of "the sons of God " with "the daugh- 
ters of men " shows that different orders of being are here 
referred to. But this contrast works precisely the other 
way. It has been already shown that in Scripture lan- 
guage the sons of God are his chosen people — the God- 
fearing race. In contrast with them " the daughters of 
men " are necessarily limited to the rest of mankind, the 
ungodly mass. Abundant illustrations can be given of 
the restriction put upon universal terms by their context. 
In Jer. xxxii. 20 God is said to have set signs and won- 
ders in the land of Egypt, in Israel, and among men. It 
is said of the wicked (Ps. lxxiii. 5), " They are not in 



SONS OF GOD AND DAUGHTEKS OF MEN (CH. VI. 1-8) 59 

trouble as men ; neither are they plagued like men." In 
Judg. xvi. 17, Samson says : " If I be shaven I shall be- 
come weak and be like all men." No one has ever in- 
ferred from these passages that Egypt and Israel, the 
wicked and Samson, belonged to some other race of be- 
ings because they are set in contrast with "men." The 
universal term is restricted by its connection ; and hence 
the English version properly inserts the word "other" 
and reads "other men." ! A precisely parallel case may 
be found in the sentence pronounced upon the serpent 
(Gen. iii. 15), " I will put enmity between thee and the 
woman, and between thy seed and her seed." The seed 
of the woman interpreted by the following verse and 
taken in its unlimited sense would denote all her de- 
scendants. But the contrast with the seed of the serpent 
necessarily limits it to' those of her race who have not 
fallen under the power of evil, and of whom alone it can 
be said that they shall bruise the serpent's head. 

9. "Whatever interpretation be put upon doubtful ex- 
pressions in ver. 3, it plainly intimates the divine pur- 
pose to inflict some penalty affecting the life of the whole 
human race. " His days shall be an hundred and twenty 
years," if spoken of the generation then living, would 
mean that they should not survive that limit ; if of suc- 
cessive generations of men, that this should henceforth 
be the term of human life. The former is demanded by 

1 Professor Strack (Comment, on Genesis, p. 21) refers likewise to 
several other passages in which general terms are limited by the con- 
nection, e.g., Gen. xiv. 16, " the women and the people." i.e., the rest 
of the people ; or in which the same expression is nsed first in a uni- 
versal and then in a restricted sense. In Judg. xix. 30 " the children 
of Israel " means the entire people, hut in the immediately following 
verses (xx. 1-3) all except Benjamin. In 1 Sam. xiii. 6 "the people" 
first means the whole, then a portion, and in ver. 7. " all the people" 
means the rest of the people. So Lev. viii. 15, "the blood " and 
"the"' (rest of the) k> blood." Compare Ex. xxix. 12; Lev. iv. 7, 18, 
25, 30, 34. 



60 THE GENERATIONS OP ADAM 

the context. The latter is preferred by critics whose 
uniform usage is to interpret at variance with the context, 
if possible. It is here absolutely without support. 
There is no suggestion anywhere that the duration of 
human life was ever fixed at one hundred and twenty 
years. It is contradicted by all that is recorded of the 
ages of subsequent patriarchs from Noah to Jacob. 
This verse, then, explicitly points to a catastrophe, in 
which that whole generation should be involved, and 
which should take place in one hundred and twenty years. 

10. Finally, it is to be remarked that the argument for 
diversity of writers is not here rested in any measure 
upon differences of diction and style. The attempt which 
is made in this connection to analyze one of the so-called 
Pentateuchal documents still further into primitive and 
secondary portions, and to assign vi. 1-4, with a few other 
brief passages, to J\ in distinction from J", is stoutly re- 
sisted by Dr. Dillmann, 1 who says, " Aim, the writer's 
style and linguistic peculiarities are alike throughout the 
alleged older and more recent J passages ; and one can- 
not see how the later writer could succeed in imitating 
the primitive document in so deceptive a manner ; more- 
over, the differences between the passages of the alleged 
primitive document are actually much greater than be- 
tween it and that which is alleged to be secondary." 
Budde, 2 too, has pointed out in detail the exact conform- 
ity of vi. 1, 2, in all its clauses and expressions, to the 
language of other passages, which are ascribed by the 
critics to the document J. 

This passage has been considered thus at length in 

1 Die Biicher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, p. 632, so, too, 
Genesis, p. 89, and yet on p. 117 he not very consistently concludes that 
vs. 1-4 is a paragraph from a more ancient document which J has incor- 
porated into his work, and has modified the style of vs. 1, 2, into con- 
formity with his own. 

2 Biblische Urgeschichte, p. 6. 



SONS OF GOD AND DAUGHTERS OF MEN (CH. VI. 1-8) 61 

order to show liow futile is the critical allegation that 
the opening verses of ch. vi. are imbued with mytho- 
logical ideas, and have been inserted here from some un- 
known document, and made to bear a sense at variance 
with their original and proper meaning. We have before 
seen how groundless is the assertion that iv. 17-24 im- 
plies that there had been no deluge. Neither is there 
any such implication in xi. 1-9. The further conclusion 
that these passages are isolated extracts from a common 
source, which knew nothing of any such catastrophe, 
falls of itself. 

MARKS OF J. 

Dillmann finds the following indications of J in vs. 1, 
2, 5-8. 

1. Jehovah. The divine names will be considered 
separately. 

2. bnn begin, also in P (Num. xvii. 11, 12) (E. V. xvi. 
46, 47)*! " 

3. TOlKiJ h 5fe"b? on the face of the ground. Though 
na^tf is made a criterion of J, and its presence in a pas- 
sage is held to warrant its reference to J, it nevertheless 
occurs in P (Gen. i. 25 ; vi. 20 ; ix. 2). And it is only by 
critical artifice that TV2i# 1JB (viii. 13b) is excluded from 
P, though it is enclosed between vs. 13a, 14, which are 
both attributed to P, and it is the direct continuation of 
13a, and is in structure conformed to vi. 12, P. The 
occurrence of fntf in 13a and of TtiCTp& in 13b does not 
justify the assumption of different sources any more than 
the same change in vii. 3, 4, or in viii. 7, 8 ; see also vs. 
9, 11, where no one dreams of a difference of sources. 

4. D^ijn Though Adam is used as a proper noun in 
P, it is also treated as a common noun, and as such has 
the article in i. 27 ; vii. 21 ; ix. 5, 6. 

5. lit: in a physical sense. So in P (Gen. i. 4 ; xxv. 8 ; 



62 THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM 

Lev. xxvii. 10, 12, 14, 33 ; Num. xiv. 7 ; xxxvi. 6). If it is 
not applied to personal beauty in P, the simple reason is 
that the critics do not assign to P any passage in which 
this idea is expressed. 

6. IS!? imagination. This word occurs but three times 
in the Hexateuch (Gen. vi. 5 ; viii. 21 ; Deut. xxxi. 21), 
and is uniformly by the critics referred to J. 

7. pi only. This word, which occurs repeatedly in J, 
E, and D, does not chance to be found in the passages 
attributed to P. 

8. ISEpnn to be grieved. This verb is here found in a 
J passage (vi. 6). It occurs twice besides in the Hexa- 
teuch, once in the same (Hithpael) form (xxxiv. 7), and 
once in a different species (Niphal) (xlv. 5). The critics 
claim them all for J, but in so doing have to resort to a 
somewhat violent procedure. Ch. xxxiv. 7 is in a P con- 
nection, the preceding verse and the following verses be- 
ing given to P ; but ver. 7 has this J word, an E phrase, 
" which ought not to be done " (cf. xx. 9), and a D phrase, 
" wrought folly in Israel " (Deut. xxii. 21), a combination 
which is readily explained on the assumption of the unity 
of the Pentateuch, but on the principles of the divisive 
critics is sufficiently puzzling. So without more ado the 
refractory verse is cut out of the connection to which it 
manifestly belongs, and the entire conglomerate is made 
over to J. Gen. xlv. 5 is in an E connection, and con- 
tains what are regarded as E characteristics, but is split 
in two in order to give this verb to J. 

9. lira blot out, destroy. See under chs. vi.-ix., Marks 
of P, No.' 19. 

10. "{H tf ra find favor. It is not surprising that this 
expression, which naturally has its place chiefly in narra- 
tive sections, does not occur in P, to which only occa- 
sional scraps of ordinary narrative are assigned. And 
yet it requires some nice critical surgery to limit it to J. 



SONS OF GOD AND DAUGHTERS OF MEN (CH. VI. 1-8) 63 

Gen. xxxiv. 11 is in a P connection. Shechem there con- 
tinues the entreaty begun by his father (vs. 8-10, P), and 
the sons of Jacob make reply to Shechem as well as to his 
father (vs. 13-18, P). Nevertheless this verse is sundered 
from its connection and given to J on account of this 
very phrase. 

11. " Human feelings attributed to God " (vi. 6, 8). 
Elohim is the general term for God, and describes him 
as the creator of the world and its universal governor, 
while Jehovah is his personal name, and that by which 
he has made himself known as the God of a gracious rev- 
elation. Hence divine acts of condescension to men and 
of self-manifestation are more naturally associated with 
the name Jehovah; whence it follows that anthropo- 
pathies and anthropomorphisms occur chiefly in Jehovah 
sections. But there is no inconsistency between the 
ideas which these are intended to suggest and the most 
spiritual and exalted notions of the Most High. The 
loftiest conceptions of God are, throughout the Scriptures, 
freely combined with anthropomorphic representations. 
His infinite condescension is no prejudice to his supreme 
exaltation. These are not different ideas of God sepa- 
rately entertained by different writers, but different as- 
pects of the divine Being which enter alike into every 
true conception of him. The writer of 1 Sam. xv. 35 
does not hesitate to say, "Jehovah repented," though he 
had said but a few verses before (ver. 29), "he is not a 
man that he should repent." The prophet Amos de- 
scribes Jehovah's majestic greatness in lofty terms (v. 8), 
and yet speaks of his repenting (vii. 3), and of his smelling 
the odors of Israel's offerings (v. 21). " Jehovah smelled 
a sweet savour " (Gen. viii. 21, J), is identical in thought 
and language with the constant phrase of the ritual, "a 
sweet savour unto Jehovah " (Lev. i. 13, P ; cf . Lev. xxvi. 
31). There is, accordingly, no incompatibility between 



64 THE GENEEATIONS OF ADAM 

the representations of God as Jehovah and as Elohim. 
These supplement and complete each other, and there is 
not the slightest reason for imputing them to the variant 
conceptions of distinct writers. 

Jehovah is used in vs. 3, 5-8 because the reference is 
to his plan of grace and salvation, which the growing 
wickedness of men threatened to defeat : in order to pre- 
vent this frustration of his purpose he determines to de- 
stroy the entire human race with the exception of right- 
eous Noah. Elohim is used in ver. 2, because of the 
contrast between the human and the divine, those of 
an earthly and those of a heavenly mind — between the 
daughters of men and the sons of God, 



m 

THE GENEEATIONS OF NOAH (CH. VI. 9-IX. 29) 

THE FLOOD (CH. YL 9-IX. 17) 

In the passages hitherto examined the portions referred 
respectively to P and J have been separate sections ; and 
an ostensible ground of partition has been found in the 
alternation of divine names, in difference of subject, or in 
the varied treatment of the same theme. But now and 
henceforward P and J are supposed to be blended in 
what has every appearance of being one consistent and 
continuous narrative. And great critical tact and skill 
are needed to separate what has been so intimately 
joined together. Nevertheless the narrative of the deluge 
is counted one of the firmest supports of the divisive hy- 
pothesis. It is affirmed that — 

1. "When properly disentangled chs. vi.-ix. will be 
found to contain two entirely distinct accounts of the 
deluge, each complete in itself, and that these differ irrec- 
oncilably in several respects. 

2. There are repetitions which show that two different 
accounts have been put together. 

3. The alternation of divine names in successive para- 
graphs shows that these have proceeded from different 
writers. 

4 The same thing can be inferred from diversities of 
language and style. 



66 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH 



THE CEITICAL PAETITION OF GEN. VI. 5-IX. 17. 

The Prophetic Narrator, J, in Italic. 
The Priestly Writer, P, in Roman. 
The Redactor in Brackets. 

VI. 5. And the LORD saiv that the luiclcedness of man 
ivas great in the earth, and that every imagination of the 
thoughts of his heart ivas only evil continually. 6. And it 
repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, 
and it grieved him at his heart. 7. And the LORD said, 
I ivill blot out man whom I have created from the face of 
the ground [both man and beast, and creeping thing, and 
foid of the heaven'] ; for it repenteth me that I have made 
them. 8. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 

9. THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH: 

Noah was a righteous man, perfect in his generations : 
Noah walked with God. 10. And Noah begat three sons, 
Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 11. And the earth was cor- 
rupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 
12. And God saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt ; 
for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. 

13. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is 
come before me ; for the earth is filled with violence 
through them ; and behold, I will destroy them with the 
earth. 14. Make thee an ark of gopher wood ; rooms 
shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and 
without with pitch. 15. And this is how thou shalt make 
it : the length of the ark three hundred cubits, the breadth 
of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. 16. 
A light shalt thou make to the ark, and to a cubit shalt 
thou finish it upward ; and the door of the ark shalt thou 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-LX. 17) 67 

set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third 
stories shalt thou make it. 17. And I, behold, I do bring 
the flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, 
wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven ; every 
thing that is in the earth shall die. 18. But I will estab- 
lish my covenant with thee ; and thou shalt come into 
the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy son's 
wives with thee. 19. And of every living thing of all 
flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to 
keep them alive with thee ; they shall be male and female. 
20. Of the fowl after their kind, and of the cattle after 
their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after 
his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep 
them alive. 21. And take thou unto thee of all food that 
is eaten, and gather it to thee ; and it shall be for food 
for thee and for them. 22. Thus did Noah ; according 
to all that God commanded him, so did he. 

YII. 1. And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and 
all thy house into the ark ; for thee have I seen righteous 
before me in this generation. 2. Of every clean beast thou 
shalt take to thee seven and seven, the male and his female : 
and of the beasts that are not clean two, the male and his 
female : 3. also of the fowl of the heaven, seven and seven, 
male and female ; to keep seed alive upon the face of all 
the earth. 4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to 
rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights ; and every 
living thing that I have made tvill I destroy from off the 
face of the ground. 5. And Noah did according to all that 
the LORD commanded him. 6. And Noah was six hundred 
years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth. 
7. And Noah went in, and his sons, and his ivife, and his 
sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the ivaters of 
the flood. 8. [Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not 
clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon 
the ground 9. there went in two and two, unto Noah into 



bO THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH 

the ark, male and female, as God commanded Noah]. 10. 
And it came to pass after the seven days, that the waters of 
the flood were upon the earth. 11. In the six hundredth 
year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seven- 
teenth day of the month, on the same day were all the 
fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows 
of heaven were opened. 12. And the rain was upon the 
earth forty days and forty nights. 13. In the selfsame day 
entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the 
sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of 
his sons with them, into the ark ; 14. they, and every 
beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, 
and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth 
after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird 
of every sort. 15. And they went in unto Noah into the 
ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of 
life. 16. And they that went in, went in male and female 
of all flesh, as God commanded him : and the LORD shut 
him in. 17. And the flood was forty days upon the earth ; 
and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was 
lift up above the earth. 18. And the waters prevailed, 
and increased greatly upon the earth ; and the ark went 
upon the face of the waters. 19. And the waters pre- 
vailed exceedingly upon the earth ; and all the high 
mountains, that were under the whole heaven, were 
covered. 20. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters pre- 
vail ; and the mountains were covered. 21. And all 
flesh died that moved upon the earth, both fowl, and 
cattle, and beast, and every creeping thing that creepeth 
upon the earth, and every man. 22. All in whose nostrils 
ivas the breath of the spirit of life, of all that was in the 
dry land, died. 23. And every living thing was destroyed 
which was upon the face of the ground [both man, and 
cattle, and creeping thing, and fowl of the heaven] ; and 
they were destroyed from the earth : and Noah only was 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 69 

left, and they that were with him in the ark. 24. And the 
waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty 
days. 

VJLLL. 1. And God remembered Noah, and every living 
thing, and all the cattle that were with him in the ark : 
and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the 
waters assuaged; 2. the fountains also of the deep and 
the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from 
heaven was restrained ; 3. and the ivaters returned from 
off the earth continually : and after the end of an hundred 
and fifty days the waters decreased. 4. And the ark 
rested in the seventh month^ on the seventeenth day 
of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. 5. And the 
waters decreased continually until the tenth month : in 
the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the 
tops of the mountains seen. 6. And it came to pass at the 
end of forty days, that Noah opened the xoindow of the ark 
which he had made: 7. and he sent forth the raven, and it 
went forth to and fro, until the ivaters were dried up from 
off the earth. 8. And he sent forth the dove from him, to see 
if the tvaters were abated from off the face of the ground ; 
9. but the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and 
she returned unto him to the ark, for the ivaters ivere on the 
face of the ivhole earth : and he put forth his hand, and 
took her, and brought her in unto him into the ark. 10. And 
he stayed yet other seven days ; and again he sent forth the 
dove out of the ark ; 11. and the dove came in to him at 
eventide ; and, lo, in her mouth an olive leaf pluckt off : so 
Noah kneiu that the ivaters were abated from off the earth. 
12. And he stayed yet other seven days ; and sent forth the 
dove ; and she returned not again unto him any more. 13. 
And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year, in 
the first month, the first day of the month, the waters 
were dried up from off the earth ; and. Noah removed the 
covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the 



70 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH 

ground ivas dried. 14. And in the second month, on the 
seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth 
dry. 

15. And God spake unto Noah, saying, 16. Go forth of 
the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' 
wives with thee. 17. Bring forth with thee every living 
thing that is with thee of all flesh, both fowl, and cattle, 
and every creeping tiling that creepeth upon the earth ; 
that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be 
fruitful, and multiply upon the earth. 18. And Noah 
went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' 
wives with him : 19. every beast, every creeping thing, 
and every fowl, whatsoever moveth upon the earth, 
after their families, went forth out of the ark. 20. And 
Noah builded an altar unto the LORD ; and took of every 
clean beast, and of every clean foivl, and offered burnt- 
offerings on the altar. 21. And the LORD smelted the 
siveet savour ; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not 
again curse the ground any more for man's sake, for that 
the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; 
neither will L again smite any more every thing living, as I 
have done. 22. While the earth remaineth, seed-time and 
harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and 
day and night shall not cease. 

IX. 1. And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said 
unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth. 
2. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be 
upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of 
the heaven, even all that moveth upon the ground, and 
all the fishes of the sea ; into your hand are they de- 
livered. 3. Every moving thing that liveth shall be food 
for you ; as the green herb have I given you all. 4. But 
flesh with the life thereof, the blood thereof, shall ye 
not eat. 5. And surely your blood of your lives will I 
require ; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-LX. 17) 71 

at the hand of man ; at the hand of every man's brother 
will I require the life of man. 6. Whoso sheddeth man's 
blood, by man shall his blood be shed : for in the image 
of God made he man. 7. And you, be ye fruitful, and 
multiply ; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and mul- 
tiply therein. 

8. And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with 
him, saying, 9. And I, behold, I establish my covenant 
with you, arid with your seed after you: 10. and with 
every living creature that is with you, the fowl, the 
cattle, and every beast of the earth with you ; of all that 
go out of the ark, even every beast of the earth. 11. 
And I will establish my covenant with you ; neither 
shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of the 
flood ; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy 
the earth. 12. And God said, This is the token of the 
covenant which I make between me and you and every 
living creature that is with you, for perpetual genera- 
tions : 13. my bow have I set in the cloud, and it shall 
be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. 
14. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over 
the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud, 15. and 
I will remember my covenant, which is between me and 
you and every living creature of all flesh ; and the waters 
shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16. 
And the bow shall be in the cloud ; and I will look upon 
it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between 
God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon 
the earth. 17. And God said unto Noah, This is the 
token of the covenant, which I have established between 
me and all flesh that is upon the earth. 

J NOT CONTINUOUS. 

Let us now examine the portion of the narrative which 
is assigned to J, and see whether it gives a complete ac- 



72 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH 

count of the flood, with no breaks or interruptions. It 
begins with vi. 5-8. We read in ver. 8, " But Noah 
found grace in the eyes of the Lord." This implies that 
the reader had already been made acquainted with Noah. 
And so he had in the scriptural account, which details 
his ancestry in ch. v. ; but this is given by the critics to P. 
No previous mention of Noah, or allusion to him is made 
in the sections attributed to J ; yet here he is spoken 
of as a well-known personage. Evidently something is 
wanting in J corresponding to what has been abstracted 
from preceding chapters and assigned to P. The critics 
endeavor to escape this difficulty by alleging that v. 29, 
in which Noah is mentioned, belongs to J. But in doing 
so they violate their own test. It is one of their criteria 
for distinguishing these documents that in J the mother 
gives name to the child, but in P the father ; see Dillmann 
on Gen. xvi. 11. Consequently, on their own principles, 
" And he (Lamech) called his name Noah " must belong 
to P, and not to J. In ver. 7 we are told that the redac- 
tor has inserted the second clause, " both man and beast, 
and creeping thing, and fowl of the heaven," because such 
detailed enumerations are foreign to J's supposed style. 
This is a confession that the text in its present form can- 
not on critical principles be assigned to J. It does not 
suit the hypothesis, but must be amended into conform- 
ity with the hypothesis. In other words, the hypothesis 
must here be supported by an inference drawn from the 
hypothesis. But this clause, though unwelcome to the 
critics, cannot be omitted from the verse, for the plural 
pronoun " them " at the end of it refers to these particu- 
lars in this second clause, not merely to " man " in the 
first clause, which would call for a pronoun in the singu- 
lar ; see " his heart," ver. 5. 

If, however, we take ver. 7 as the critics have corrected 
it, leaving out the second clause, then it declares that the 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-LX. 17) 73 

Loed said, not to Xoah but to himself, i.e.. he resolved, 
that he would destroy man, no mention being made of 
the way in which this was to be effected, nor whether the 
inferior creatures would be involved. J then springs at 
once to vii. 1. where "the Loed said to Xoah, Come thou 
and all thy house into the ark : " though there is no 
previous allusion in -J to the fact that Xoah had a family, 
or that there was an ark, or any occasion for there being 
an ark. To be sore, all this has been explained before ; 
vi. 10 speaks of Noah's three sons, and vs. 13-22 tell 
how God told Xoah of the coming flood and bid him 
build an ark for the safety of his house and the various 
species of living things, and that Xoah did so. But all 
this is assigned to P; there is not a word of it in J. 
Clearly there is something missing in J ; and just that is 
missing which has been abstracted frorn the previous 
narrative and siven by the critics to P. 

In vs. 7-10 we have J's account of Xoah's entry into 
the ark. But ver. 9, we are told, has been manipulated 
by the redactor. The words "there went in two and 
two,"' " male and female '"' and " God " are characteristics 
of P. Here again the text is not in accord with the hy- 
pothesis ; a number of P's words and expressions are in 
a J paragraph, and it must be the fault of the redactor. 
But this is not all. There is not a verse in the para- 
graph which is just as it should be, if the critics are 
right. The detailed enumeration, " Xoah and his sons, 
and his wife, and his sons' wives " ver. 7 . instead of 
simply Xoah and all his house, as ver. 1. is foreign to J : 
so in ver. 8, ;; beasts and fowls and every thing that creep- 
eth," instead of " every living thing."' as ver. 4 ; and 
"waters of the flood" 1 (vs. 7, 10 1 refer back to P's 

: Xoldeke says that the agreement of J and P is very remarkable in 
the words I'Z^Z flood, "17 :r : :. and ~! Xoah. Budde and Dillmann 
try to escape the admission that ver. 7. J. refers back to ver 6. P. by 
arbitrarily transposing ver. 10 so as to stand before ver. 7. 



74 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH 

phrase, vi. 17 ; vii. G. It is said that the redactor " ap- 
parently designed to bring the style a little more closely 
into harmony with that of P." But why he should be so 
concerned just here to alter expressions which he leaves 
unchanged elsewhere, does not appear. And it is par- 
ticularly surprising that he should of his own motion 
introduce what the critics consider a discrepancy into 
J's account. How could he make J appear to say in vs. 
8, 9, " of clean beasts and of beasts that are not clean 
. . . there went in two and two unto Noah into the 
ark," in open contradiction, as the critics allege, with what 
he had said just before in ver. 2, 1 that clean beasts were 
to go in seven and seven, and of beasts not clean two? 
And yet we are told that the documents "are woven to- 
gether in a highly artistic manner," and the redactor's 
work is " admirably " done. If this is so, he must have 
been an intelligent person and could not have made 
grossly contradictory statements within the compass of a 
few lines without perceiving it. He certainly could have 
seen nothing of the sort here, or he would not gratui- 
tously have inserted a discrepancy in the text of his own 
accord, which was not there in the document from which 
he was copying. And if he did not see it, perhaps there 
is no contradiction after all. It may be that the critics 
are mistaken in fancying that there is one. And in 
point of fact there is no discrepancy between the general 
statement that two of every species, a male and a female, 
entered the ark and the more particular declaration that 
there were seven of every species of clean beasts and two 
of those that were not clean. If, then, the redactor is in 
harmony with J (vii. 2, 3), there is no discrepancy be- 
tween J (vii. 2, 3) and P (vi. 19 ; vii. 15). 

1 Kayser, p. 8, enlarges the text of vii. 3, to restore it to what he con- 
ceives to he its primitive form. So, too, he modifies the text of vii. 7-9 
into what he considers its primitive form. The fact that it is not as he 
would reconstruct it, shows the falsity of his critical presuppositions. 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 75 

In what follows, the semblance of continuity can only 
be made out for J by means of scattered sentences and 
clauses torn from their connection in an arbitrary man- 
ner. Thus J proceeds to ver. 12, and then skips to 16b : 
" And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty 
nights . . . and the Lord shut him in." It is nat- 
ural to ask why the Lord waited forty days before he 
shut the door of the ark behind Noah. It is obvious 
that the last clause of ver. 16 has no proper connection 
with ver. 12, to which the critics attach it. It plainly 
belongs where it stands in the text. The severance of 
ver. 16 annuls the significant and evidently intended 
contrast of the two divine names in this verse, to the 
significance of which Delitzsch calls attention, thus dis- 
crediting the basis of the critical analysis, which he nev- 
ertheless accepts. Animals of every species went into 
the ark, as Elohim, the God of creation and providence 
directed, mindful of the preservation of what he had 
made ; Jehovah, the guardian of his people, shut Noah in. 

The rise of the waters of the flood is depicted in vs. 
17-20 in four successive stages. The critics arbitrarily 
sunder one of these (ver. 17) from the rest, and assign it 
to J. The destruction accomplished by the flood is simi- 
larly described in three successive statements of grow- 
ing intensity (vs. 21-23). Two of these are parted from 
the remaining one and given to J (vs. 22, 23). 

The next clause of J is viii. 2b, " and the rain from 
heaven was restrained." Just before we read in vii. 24, 
" the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty 
days." The critics find a discrepancy between this and vii. 
4, 12, according to which it rained forty days. The intel- 
ligent redactor has been at fault here again. He has in- 
serted this clause respecting the stopping of the rain in 
the wrong place. It should have preceded vii. 24, instead 
of following it. But we may shelter ourselves behind 



76 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH 

him once more. If he saw no impropriety in putting 
this clause where he did, perhaps there was none. He 
may not thus have brought J into conflict with himself 
after all. If it had been said that the rain from heaven 
was not restrained after one hundred and fifty days had 
passed, there would, indeed, have been a discrepancy. 
But where is the discrepancy in saying that it had 
stopped ? 

The last clause of viii. 2 is separated from the first, 
one being given to J, and the other to P. But this is 
severing what of necessity belongs together. We find 
the same combination here as in vii. 11, 12, where the 
sources of the flood are described, and the critics split 
them asunder after the same fashion. These sources 
were two, viz. : the rushing in of the waters of the ocean 
upon the land, and the torrents descending from the sky. 
The tenses of the Hebrew verbs at once indicate to the 
reader that the bursting forth of the fountains of the 
great deep and the opening of the windows of heaven 
are separate items, while the fall of the rain is a sequence 
of that which just preceded. The opening of the win- 
dows of heaven prepares the way for the downpour, but 
is not the downpour itself. The thought is not complete 
until the actual fall of rain is added. Comp. Mai. iii. 10. 
The opening of the windows of heaven cannot, therefore, 
be attributed to one writer and the rain to another ; both 
belong indissolubly together. The same is the case with 
viii. 2 ; the last clause is inseparable from the first. And 
besides, " the rain from heaven " is evidently contrasted 
with " the fountains of the deep" so that the two clauses 
of the verse are bound together thus again. And ver. 3a 
cannot be separated from ver. 2. The latter states that 
the sources of the flood had ceased ; but this would not, 
of itself account for the subsidence of the water. The 
stopping of the fountains of the deep and of the windows 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 77 

of heaven are purely negative ; to this must be added the 
positive flowing off of the water, if the flood was to be 
reduced. To sever this clause from P and give it to J, 
as is done by the critics, leaves P's statement inadequate 
and incomplete. And the phraseology used shows the 
same thing ; " the waters returned ; " whither ? certainly 
not to heaven (2b), but to the deep (2a), from which the 
great body of them had come. So that if the word " re- 
turned " is to have anything like its proper force, ver. 3a 
is tied to 2a, and cannot be severed from it as the critics 
propose. 

Then the sending out of the birds (vs. 6-12) is given 
to J. In vs. 13, 14, the drying of the earth is stated in 
two stages ; one of these (ver. 13b) is arbitrarily given to 
J, and the other (ver. 14) to P. J makes no allusion to 
Noah's leaving the ark, which is another serious break 
in his narrative. This is spoken of, indeed, in the 
Scripture account (vs. 15-19) ; but it is given to P. So 
that here again we miss in J precisely what has been ab- 
stracted by the critics and attributed to the other docu- 
ment. J's account concludes with Noah's sacrifice (vs. 
20-22). 

Instead, therefore, of a complete account with no in- 
terruptions, we find in the portion assigned to J several 
important gaps created purely by the critical partition ; 
other chasms scantily bridged by scattered clauses torn 
from their context, in which they are indispensable, or 
attached to passages where they are inappropriate ; ex- 
pressions which by critical rules cannot belong to J, and 
require the assumption, which has no other basis than 
the exigencies of the hypothesis, that the text has been 
manipulated by the redactor ; and discrepancies, so called, 
which are wholly due to the redactor's gratuitous inter- 
ference. 



78 THE GENERATIONS OE NOAH 



P NOT CONTINUOUS 

Let us now see how it is with P. The first paragraph 
assigned to him is vi. 9-22. We here read (vs. 11, 12), 
" And God saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt ; " 
and so corrupt that he was determined to destroy it. The 
form of expression here is with manifest allusion to i. 31, 
where P had said, " And God saw every thing that he had 
made, and, behold, it was very good." The existing state 
of things is plainly set in designed contrast to the state- 
ment made at the creation. But not a word of explana- 
tion is offered to account for this dreadful change. It is 
indeed explained sufficiently in the Scripture narrative. 
The intervening chapters tell us of the fall, of the grow- 
ing degeneracy of the ungodly race of Cain, of the infec- 
tion even of the godly race by intermarriage with the rest. 
But all this is by the critics attributed to J ; there is 
nothing of the kind in P. Plainly something is missing 
here ; and just that is missing which the critics have 
transferred to another document. 

P then proceeds to tell that Noah was instructed to 
build the ark, which he did, and records his age at the 
coming of the flood (vii. 6, 11), and his entry with some 
of all living things into the ark (vs. 13-16). 

The sacred writer labors to produce a vivid impression 
of the enormous rise of the waters of the flood by de- 
scribing it in four successive stages until it reached the 
prodigious altitude which it actually attained. First 
(ver. 17), the water rose sufficiently to float the ark. 
Then (ver. 18) it rose very much higher still, and the ark 
mounted aloft upon its surface. Next (ver. 19), it at- 
tained such a height as to cover all the high mountains 
within the entire horizon. Finally (ver. 20), it reached 
its maximum, fifteen cubits above the mountain-tops. 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 79 

This regular gradation is broken apart by the critics, 
who assign the first or lowest stage to J, and the other 
three stages to P, thus giving to each a truncated de- 
scription, which when put together match precisely and 
supply just what before was wanting in each. Is this 
a lucky accident, or has not this entire description eman- 
ated from one mind ? 

The sacred writer seeks again to give adequate expres- 
sion to the destruction wrought by the flood by three 
successive statements of increasing strength. First (ver. 
21), he declares with emphatic particularity that all flesh 
died, fowl and cattle and beast and creeping thing and 
man. Then (ver. 22), in the most universal terms, " All 
in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, of all 
that was in the dry land, died." Finally (ver. 23), universal 
and particular terms are combined, and the most forcible 
expression for complete destruction added in contrast 
with the sole survivors : " And every living thing was 
wiped out which was upon the face of the ground, both 
man and cattle and creeping thing and fowl of the 
heaven ; and they were wiped out from the earth ; and 
Noah only was left, and they that were with him in the 
ark." Disregarding these climactic periods, which are 
heaped together in order to intensify the contrast of the 
last clause, the critics give the first of the sentences to 
P, thus sundering it completely from what follows, the 
result of which is to make P affirm, in the most absolute 
manner, the universality of the destruction without so 
much as a single survivor. The next two verses are 
given to J in spite of the enumeration of particulars in 
ver. 23, " both man and cattle and creeping thing and 
fowl of the heaven," which, according to critical princi- 
ples, is foreign to his style, and must be thrown out of 
the text as an insertion by the redactor. The passage 
does not correspond with the hypothesis, and is hence 



80 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH 

corrected into conformity with it. And yet this clause, 
which is objectionable to the critics and which they pro- 
pose to eliminate, is one of the features of the verse 
which adapts it to the climactic position that it occupies. 

It has before been shown that viii. 2, 3, cannot be par- 
titioned as the critics propose ; and that the severance 
of vs. 2b, 3, as an insertion from J, would leave P's 
statement incomplete. 

The narrative then proceeds after the same analogy to 
describe the subsidence of the flood. And it may be 
proper to note that the seven stages of the decline of the 
water precisely correspond with the four stages of its 
rise added to the three statements of its wide-spread deso- 
lation. First (viii. 1), a wind passed over the earth, 
which served to reduce the volume of the water. Sec- 
ondly (vs. 2-4), the sources of the flood had ceased, and 
the water flowed off to such an extent that the ark rested 
on the mountains of Ararat. Thirdly (ver. 5), the water 
still further decreased and the tops of the mountains ap- 
peared. Fourthly (vs. 6-9), as the water continued to 
sink, a dove was sent forth after forty days, but the 
flood was still at such a height that no resting-place 
could be found. Fifthly (vs. 10, 11), after seven days 
more the water had abated sufficiently for trees to 
emerge, as was shown by the olive leaf plucked off by the 
dove. Sixthly (ver. 12), the dove was sent out and re- 
turned no more. Seventh, and finally (ver. 13), the day 
is noted on which Noah discovered that the water was 
dried up from off the earth. This regular gradation is 
spoiled by the critics, who assign (vs. 6-12) the mission of 
the birds, to J ; the consequence of which is that P 
springs at once from ver. 5, the first appearance of the 
mountain-tops, to ver. 13, where the waters were dried 
up from off the earth. 

The prominence given to the sending out of the birds 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 81 

in the Chaldean account of the deluge, which is univer- 
sally confessed to stand in an intimate relation to that 
in Genesis, further shows that any narrative of the flood 
would be incomplete if this were not included. Least 
of all can this be questioned by those who maintain that 
the Hebrew narrative was borrowed from the Chaldean. 

The paragraph respecting the birds (viii. 6-12) is quite 
devoid of any critical marks allying it to one or the other 
of the documents, as is apparent from the history of its 
treatment. From Astruc and Eichhorn to the supple- 
mentary critics Tuch and Knobel, it was almost uni- 
formly assigned to P. Stahelin is uncertain about it. 
Eeuss regards it as the sole surviving remnant of a third 
account of the flood, distinct from the other two. Hup- 
feld gives (ver. 7) the raven to J, and (vs. 8-12) the dove 
to P. Friedrich Delitzsch reverses the matter, and gives 
the raven to P and the dove to J. Kayser, Wellhausen, 
Kuenen, Dillmann, and others assign the whole to J, in 
which they were preceded by the eccentric Ilgen. The 
motive which at present inclines the majority to J, ap- 
pears to be twofold. Such a graphic incident is thought 
to befit the more " picturesque " narrator, and this is the 
most striking parallel with the cuneiform tablets, with 
which J is held to stand in the closest relation. Both an 
argument and an inference are supplied from these two 
points of view of a somewhat circular character. It is as- 
signed to J because he is picturesque and allied to the 
tablets ; and being so assigned proves him to be pictu- 
resque and allied to the tablets. One cannot but feel 
that if the critics had anything to gain by so doing, they 
might with equal ease have imputed to the writer of this 
paragraph an alleged characteristic of P, and said that 
his style was " stereotyped," and abounding in " regular 
formulas " and the " repetition of like phrases," thus : 
" And he sent forth the raven " (ver. 7) ; cf. " and he 
6 



82 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH 

sent forth the dove " (ver. 8) ; " and he stayed yet other 
seven days and sent forth the dove " (twice, vs. 10, 12) ; 
" waters were abated from off the face of the ground " 
(twice, vs. 8, 11), cf. also -ver. 9 ; "to him into the ark " 
(twice, ver. 9) ; " going and returning," (twice (in Heb.), 
vs. 3, 7), cf. ver. 5. 

The drying of the ground is likewise stated in two 
successive stages. First (ver. 13), the surface was so far 
dried that the water had disappeared. Then (ver. 14), 
the earth was dry. These are, as before stated, divided 
by the critics between J and P. 

P proceeds to tell of Noah's leaving the ark (vs. 15- 
19). But he records no act of worship or thanksgiving 
for this great deliverance. Yet he had spoken of Noah 
as a righteous man, who walked with God (vi. 9). In 
fact, throughout the entire patriarchal history P never 
mentions an altar or sacrifice or any act of worship. 
These are, indeed, spoken of repeatedly in the sacred 
history ; but they are invariably referred to other docu- 
ments, never to P. And yet P, according to the critics, 
is the priestly writer, who is especially interested in rit- 
ual worship and in ceremonial matters. It is he who re- 
cords the institution of the Sabbath (ii. 3), and of cir- 
cumcision (xvii. 10), and the prohibition of eating blood 
(ix. 4) ; and he never relates anything derogatory to the 
patriarchs, but always exalts them as model men of God. 
Is it conceivable that he should have omitted to mention 
that Noah devoutly praised God for his merciful inter- 
position on his behalf ? Surely there has been an omis- 
sion here ; and the more evidently so, as a sacrifice is so 
prominent a feature in the Chaldean account of the del- 
uge. 

It thus appears also that there are serious chasms in 
P's account likewise, that the symmetry of the narrative 
is spoiled in repeated instances by the proposed parti- 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 83 

tion, and that passages are rent from their connection 
and assigned to J, which are indispensable in the con- 
text in which they stand. 

NO SUPEKFLUOUS REPETITIONS. 

It is further claimed that there are repetitions which 
betray the composite character of the narrative, and show 
that it has been made up by combining two separate ac- 
counts. But this is a mistake ; there are no superfluous 
repetitions to warrant such a conclusion. We are pointed 
in the first instance to the opening verses. It is said 
that vi. 5-7 contains J's account of the wickedness of 
man and of the Lord's purpose to destroy the race ; then 
follows, in vs. 11-13, P's account of the very same thing ; 
but a slight consideration of the circumstances will make 
it appear that the critics' conclusion is altogether unwar- 
ranted. The title (vi. 9), " These are the generations of 
Noah," marks the beginning of a new section of the his- 
tory, and indicates its subject to be the fortunes of Noah's 
family. In entering upon this topic the writer first ex- 
plains the situation with the view of placing distinctly 
before the minds of his readers at the outset the causes 
of what was about to take place. He commences by 
stating the character of Noah (ver. 9b l ), which explains 
the intimation in ver. 8 of the special favor shown to him. 
He then recapitulates some statements previously made, 
which are necessary to the understanding of the follow- 
ing narrative. He speaks of Noah's three sons (ver. 10), 
though they had been named in identical terms in v. 32, 
which the critics likewise refer to P ; no one thinks of 

1 Kayser (p. 8) says : "Noah was a righteous man and perfect in his 
generations," belongs to J (see vii. 1) ; " Noah walked with God." to P, 
(v 21). Other critics quietly ignore this identity of expressions, and 
give the entire verse, which manifestly belongs together, to P. 



84 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH 

a difference of writers because of this repetition. He 
further speaks of the universal corruption (vs. 11, 12) ; 
this had already been mentioned at the close of the pre- 
ceding section (ver. 5) as a sequence from facts previously 
stated. 1 But it lay so at the basis of what was to be re- 
corded in this new section that it is mentioned here again, 
And there is no more reason for suspecting a diversity of 
writers than there is in ver. 10, which all acknowledge to 
be by the same writer as v. 32. It is just such a recapit- 
ulation as any writer might be expected to make under 
the circumstances. On the other hand, ver. 13 is not a 
repetition of the statement made in ver. 7, but is an ad- 
vance upon it. In ver. 7 mention is made of the Loed's 
purpose to destroy man ; in ver. 13 this purpose is com- 
municated to Noah, which is quite another thing. 

In vs. 18-20, while directing Noah to build the ark. 
God tells him the purpose for which it was to be made, 
and that he was to take with him into it some of every 
species of living things in order to keep them alive. 
After the ark had been built, and the time for sending 
the flood drew nigh, the Lord bade Noah to go into it 
with his family and with some of every species of ani- 
mals (vii. 1-3). But there is no superfluous repetition 
here. Two distinct divine communications were made 
at different times, and each is reported in its proper 
place. 

The critics, however, lay great stress upon the fact that 
the entry into the ark is twice recorded ; vs. 7-9 2 , they 
tell us, is J's account, and vs. 13-16 that of P. But this, 
too, is a mistake; there is nothing here requiring the 

1 Noldeke (p. 16) remarks that other sections (v. 1 ; x. 1, and xi. 27) 
in like manner begin with the repetition of what had been before 
stated. 

2 Schrader and Dillmann give vs. 8, 9, to R ; Noldeke gives vs. 7-9 
to R as his elaboration of the originally brief words of the Jehovist. 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 85 

supposition of distinct documents. It has been before 
shown that vs. 7-9 cannot by critical rules be referred to 
J, without a reconstruction of the text in each individual 
verse. But besides this it is to be noted that ver. 6 gives 
a general statement of Noah's age at the coming of the 
flood; he was then six hundred years old. In ver. 11 
this is stated again with more particularity, in order to 
indicate the precise day on which the flood began, viz., 
the six hundredth year of Noah's life, the second month, 
the seventeenth day of the month. The critics do not 
find this repetition incompatible with the sameness of 
the writer ; vs. 6 and 11 are both alike referred by them 
to P. In precisely the same manner, with the view of 
exhibiting the precision of the divine arrangements, the 
sacred writer points out the fact in vs. 13-16 that Noah 
and all his company entered the ark on the self-same day 
on which the flood broke forth ; and the emphasis which 
he puts upon this thought appears from the particularity 
of detail and the iteration in these verses. Now why 
should this repetition for this evident purpose be any 
more suggestive of a diversity of writers than the like 
repetition in regard to Noah's age ? 

The critics are embarrassed here by their own hypoth- 
esis. Different views have been entertained in respect to 
the relation of J and P. According to some critics J and 
P each wrote a separate and independent document, and 
these, after circulating singly for a time, were at length 
combined by a redactor. These are known as docu- 
mentary critics. Others have held that J did not write 
a complete document of his own, but simply edited an 
enlarged edition of P. The document P was made the 
basis, to which J simply made additions, supplementing 
it here and there as he had occasion. These are known 
as supplementary critics. 

In the case before us the documentary make this point 



86 THE GENERATIONS OP NOAH 

against the supplementary critics, that no editor in sup- 
plementing a pre-existing work, would introduce of his 
own motion what was already in almost identical terms 
in the work before him. Such a superfluous repetition 
could only be accounted for by supposing that a redactor 
was combining two works, for each of which he had a 
great reverence, so that he was reluctant to omit any- 
thing that either of them contained. Thus it came to 
pass that after copying a statement from one of his 
sources he finds the same thing stated likewise in the 
other, and copies it also. This has a plausible sound. 
It certainly silences the supplementary critics. But 
there are two insuperable difficulties in the way of ac- 
cepting the solution which the documentary critics offer. 
1. Judged by their own critical rules the compiler has 
not preserved what was peculiar to J in vs. 7-10, but has 
conformed it throughout to the style of P. 2. In other 
cases he has not shown a similar care to preserve all the 
contents of his sources. Why has he not given a dupli- 
cate account of the building of the ark, or of the exit 
from it, as well as of the entry into it? The obvious 
reason is that in the former there was no coincidence 
in time to emphasize, as there was in the latter. Hence 
the emphatic repetition in the one, whereas there was no 
occasion for it in the others. 

It has before been shown that the statements respect- 
ing the rise of the waters, their destructiveness, and their 
subsequent fall cannot be parcelled between different 
writers ; and that the attempt to find two parallel accounts 
of these particulars by J and by P is not successful. The 
verses and clauses which are given to J cannot be sun- 
dered from the context in which they stand. Moreover, 
the description of successive stages is not identical repe- 
tition, and as such suggestive of distinct documents. 
And if it were, four statements of the rise of the waters, 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 87 

three of their destructive effects, and seven of their fall, 
cannot be distributed between two documents without 
leaving repetitions in each. More than two documents 
are necessary, if each repetition is indicative of a sepa- 
rate writer. The critical argument is in this case plainly 
self-destructive. 

It should also be observed that like repetitions are 
found in other cases which the critics quietly ignore, and 
never think of tracing to a diversity of documents. Thus 
the corruption and violence prevailing in the earth is stated 
four times in as many successive clauses (vi. 11, 12) ; the 
entry of all living things into the ark with Noah is re- 
peated three times (vii. 14-16), where Dillmann remarks, 
" It is as though the author, moved by the momentous 
character of the day, could not do enough to satisfy him- 
self in the detailed portraiture of the transaction." God's 
establishment of his covenant with Noah is twice stated, 
(ix. 9, 11) ; and the bow in the cloud as the token of the 
covenant is mentioned again and again (ix. 12-17). In 
all these cases the critics recognize but one writer. So, 
too, the triple mention of the names of Noah's sons (v. 32 ; 
vi. 10 ; x. 1) is given to P ; the fourth mention of the 
same (ix. 18) being assigned to J. A rule which plays 
fast and loose in this manner at the pleasure of the op- 
erator, is a very insecure dependence. 

It has also been claimed that Noah's sacrifice and the 
Lord's resolve not to destroy all living things again (viii. 
20-22), are parallel to God's blessing Noah, and his cove- 
nant not to send another universal flood (ix. 1-17) ; and 
that the former is the account of J, and the latter that of 
P respecting the same thing. But these are not the same ; 
one is the sequel of the other ; viii. 21, 22 states the di- 
vine purpose, that " the Lord said in his heart ; " in ix. 
1-17 this purpose is made known to Noah. 

The examination of the narrative of the flood thus 



OS THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH 

shows that so far from everything being duplicated, 
nothing is duplicated from first to last except the entry 
into the ark, and that for a special reason not suggestive 
of two documents but excluding them. 



THE DIVINE NAMES 

It is still further urged that the alternation of divine 
names in successive paragraphs of this narrative gives 
evidence of its composite character. It is affirmed that 
this requires the assumption of two different writers, who 
were in the habit of using different terms in speaking of 
the Most High. One (P) always spoke of him as "God" 
(Heb., Elohim); the other (J) as Lord (Heb., Jehovah), 
The narrative, as we possess it, has been made up from 
the combination of the accounts in these two documents ; 
and hence the blending of these two names, as they are 
here found. But this is a superficial and mechanical ex- 
planation of what is really due to a different and more 
satisfactory cause. 

There are two aspects, under which the flood can be 
contemplated, and two points of view from which its 
place and function in the sacred history can be regarded. 
It may be looked upon as the act of the Creator, destroy- 
ing the work of his hands because it had become corrupt 
and so perverted from its original intent, and at the same 
time providing for the perpetuation of the several species 
of living things. Or, on the other hand, it may be con- 
sidered in its relation to the work of redemption. The 
wickedness of man threatened to put an end to the scheme 
of grace and salvation ; in order to prevent his merciful 
designs from being thwarted thus, the Most High re- 
solved to destroy the ungodly race, and rescue the one 
surviving pious family to be the seed of a new race, 
among whom true religion might be nurtured until it 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 89 

should ultimately fill the whole earth. The sacred writer 
has both these aspects of this great catastrophe in 
mind, and he suggests them to his readers by the alter- 
nate use of the divine names. When he has regard to 
the divine government and providential care, as mani- 
fested in it, he speaks of it as the act of Elohim. When 
he has regard to his special guardianship over the pious, 
or to aught that concerns divine worship, he uses the 
sacred name Jehovah. 

Thus it is Elohim who sees with displeasure the dis- 
order introduced by the corruption of mankind, aud 
makes known his purpose to destroy them, but institutes 
measures for preserving the various species of animals 
by means of an ark to be built for this end (vi. 9-22). 
It is Elohim agreeably to whose command creatures of 
both sexes went in unto Noah into the ark (vii. 9, 16). 
It is Elohim who remembered Noah and every living 
thing that was with him in the ark, and who made a wind 
pass over the earth to assuage the waters (viii. 1). It is 
Elohim who bade Noah go forth of the ark, and bring- 
forth with him every living thing that they may mul- 
tiply upon the earth (viii. 15-17). It is Elohim who 
blessed Noah and his sons, as he had blessed man at his 
creation (i. 28), bidding them Be fruitful, and multiply, 
and replenish the earth (ix. 1). It is Elohim who estab- 
lished his covenant with Noah and with every living- 
creature, pledging that there should be no flood in future 
to destroy all flesh (ix. 8-17). 

On the other hand, it is Jehovah (E. V., the Lord), in 
whose eyes Noah found grace (vi. 8), and who was re- 
solved to put a sudden end to the downward progress of 
growing wickedness which infected every imagination of 
the thoughts of man's heart and threatened to banish 
piety from the earth (vs. 5-7). It is Jehovah who bade 
righteous Noah come with all his house into the ark, 



90 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH 

and take with liim animals fit for sacrifice in larger 
numbers than the rest (vii. 1-3). It is Jehovah who shut 
Noah in, after he had entered the ark (ver. 16), though in 
the very same verse it is Elohim who commanded that 
the beasts of both sexes should enter in. It is Jehovah 
to whom Noah builds an altar and offers sacrifice, and 
who graciously accepts the offering (vs. 20, 21). 

It thus appears that the divine names are discrimi- 
natingly employed throughout the entire narrative ; there 
are no superfluous repetitions, suggestive of a combina- 
tion of distinct documents ; there are serious gaps and 
halting-places in each of the accounts, into which the 
critics propose to divide the history of the deluge ; and 
in numerous instances the partition attempted is imprac- 
ticable because it would sunder what is plainly indivis- 
ible. It is further noteworthy that there is no pretence 
of basing the critical partition of these chapters on di- 
versity of diction. The scattered clauses assigned to J. 
which have already been shown to be inseparable from 
their contexts, have not even this poor pretext in their 
favor. In fact there is scarcely more than three or four 
words or phrases in all that is attributed to J in the entire 
narrative of the deluge which is claimed elsewhere as 
characteristic of that document ; while there are several 
phrases and forms of speech, as has been already pointed 
out, that are elsewhere held to be characteristic of P, not 
to speak of the word " create " (vi. 7), which in ch. i. is 
made a mark of P in distinction from J. 



NO DISCREPANCIES 

The attempt is made to create a variance between vi. 
5 and ver. 12 by alleging that J attributes the flood to 
the wickedness of man, but P to the corruption of " all 
flesh," meaning thereby the entire animal creation as well 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 91 

as man; and when P speaks of the earth being filled 
with violence he refers not merely to human deeds of 
violence and crime, but also to the rapacity and ferocity 
of beasts which prey upon weaker animals instead of feed- 
ing upon the herbage allowed them at their creation (i. 
30). But the term "all flesh " has a wider or narrower 
meaning as determined by the connection. When it is 
said (vii. 21) that " all flesh died " in the flood, men and 
animals are both intended. But vii. 15, " two and two of 
all flesh went in unto Noah into the ark," has reference 
to animals only. And in such phrases as " God of the 
spirits of all flesh " (Num. xvi. 22 ; xxvii. 16 ; cf. Jer. xxxii. 
27) ; " who is there of all flesh that hath heard the voice 
of the living God? " (Dent. v. 23, E. Y. 26) ; " all flesh shall 
see the glory of the Lord " (Isa. xl. 5) ; "I will pour out 
my Spirit upon all flesh " (Joel iii. 1, E. V. ii. 28) ; cf. 
also Ps. lvi. 5 (4) ; lxv. 3 (2) ; cxlv. 21 ; Isa. lxvi. 16, 24 ; 
Ezek. xxi. 10 (E. Y. 5) ; Zech. ii. 13, the reference is to all 
mankind. This is also evidently the case in Gen. vi. 12, 
" all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth ; " for 
moral character and responsibility can only be affirmed 
of man, not of the inferior animals. 

It has before been shown that there is no discrepancy 
between the general direction (vi. 19 P), to take a pair of 
each kind of animals into the ark in order to preserve 
alive the various species, and the more specific require- 
ment, when the time arrived for entering the ark, that 
clean beasts should be taken by sevens and the unclean 
by twos (vii. 2 J). If it had been said that only two 
should be taken of each kind, the case would have been 
different. J also relapses into the general form of state- 
ment (vii. 9) ; or if the critics prefer, K does so, which 
amounts to the same thing, as by the hypothesis he had 
J's previous statement before him. There is no contra- 
diction here any more than there is between the general 



92 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH 

and the more exact statement of Noah's age in vii. 6 and 
11. 

In vii. 10 the flood came seven days, not after Noah 
entered the ark, but after the announcement, vs. 1-4 ; so 
that there is no conflict with vii. 13. 

It is alleged that there is a serious variance between 
J and P in respect to the duration of the flood. Ac- 
cording to P (vii. 11) it began on the seventeenth day 
of the second month, and ended on the twenty-seventh 
day of the second mouth of the following year (viii. 13, 
14). According to J (vii. 12) it rained forty days, at 
the end of which (viii. 6-12) Noah sent forth birds at 
the intervals of three successive periods of seven days, 
whereupon (ver. 13b) the face of the ground was dried ; 
the flood only lasted, therefore, sixty-one days, or, if the 
forty days of viii. 6 are additional to the forty of vii. 12, 
it lasted one hundred and one days, instead of a year and 
ten days as reckoned by P. 

The fallacy of all this is obvious. It is simply pa- 
rading a part as though it were the whole. " At the end 
of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark " (viii. 
6). Forty days from what ? The critics are in doubt 
whether to reckon from the beginning or the end of the 
forty days' rain. What, then, is to be thought of the 
intelligence of R in compiling this narrative ? As this 
verse stands it is not possible to reckon otherwise than 
from the first day of the tenth month (viii. 5). Adding 
to this the three periods of seven days, it appears that 
the dove was sent out for the last time on the first day of 
the twelfth month. After another month Noah removes 
the covering of the ark, and in a mouth and twenty-seven 
days more he leaves the ark entirely. All is thus in per- 
fect harmony. 

The inference of the critics is, besides, quite unfounded 
upon their own principles. By their own concession J 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-LX. 17) 93 

is not complete. His genealogy from Adam to Noah is 
only preserved in part. His account of building the ark 
and of Noah's leaving it have been omitted, R not judg- 
ing it necessary to repeat from J what he had already 
inserted from P. Whence, then, this sudden confidence 
that no numbers originally in J have been omitted, not- 
withstanding the fact that such an assumption gives to 
his statements a meaning that they cannot now have, sets 
them in opposition to otherwise uncontradicted state- 
ments of P, and convicts R of incapacity or worse ? 

Just here the perplexity of the critics in respect to 
vii. 17a is instructive. "The flood was forty days upon 
the earth," is given entire by Dillmann to J, by Kuenen 
to R, and with the exception of the words " forty days," 
by Kautzsch and Socin to P ; also by Hupfeld to P with- 
out exception, only he insists that the " forty days " must 
be understood differently from J in vii. 4 ; Budcle gives 
it to P, but strikes the " forty days " out of the text, and 
reads " the flood of waters was upon the earth." All is 
with the design of bringing J and P into conflict regard- 
ing the duration of the flood ; so that is effected they are 
not particular about the mode of accomplishing it. 

The conjecture that still another estimate of the dura- 
tion of the flood is intimated in vii. 24, and that the one 
hundred and fifty days of its increase imply the same 
length of time for its decrease, so that it must have 
lasted just three hundred days (see Dillmann, " Genesis," 
p. 130) is a pure figment with no foundation whatever 
in the Biblical narrative. The statement is not that the 
flood continued to increase for one hundred and fifty 
days, but that having previously reached its full height 
it continued at its maximum until that time, reckoned 
from its beginning, and then decreased for seven months 
and ten days, when the earth was dry. 



94 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH 

DIFFEKENCE OF DICTION 

It is further contended, however, that there are certain 
characteristics peculiar to each of these so-called docu- 
ments, which distinguish them from one another in dic- 
tion, style, mode of conception, and range of ideas ; and 
that these are so marked and constant as to prove diver- 
sity of origin. These are most fully and succinctly 
stated by Dillmann, 1 who has enlarged and corrected the 
collection diligently gathered by Knobel. He gives the 
following distinctive marks for the recognition of P in 
chs. vi.-ix. : (1) The title, vi. 9. (2) Beckoning by the 
years of Noah's life. (3) The exact statements of time 
respecting the course of the flood. (4) The measure- 
ments of the ark. (5) Weaving in a law, ix. 1-7, and its 
referring back to i. 27 seq. (6) The covenant and its 
sign, ix. 8 sqq. (7) Diffuseness and constantly recurring 
formulae. (8) The antique description of the sources of 
the flood, vii. 11 ; viii. 2 ; recalling i. 6-8. (9) The 
image of God, ix. 6. (10) The mode of speaking of 
Noah's family, vi. 18 ; vii. 7, 13 ; viii. 16, 18 (on the 
contrary, vii. 1). (11) nta~b3 vi. 12 seq., 17, 19 ; vii. 15 seq., 
21; viii. 17; ix. 11, 15-17'. (12) irDptt idt vi. 19; vii. 
9, 16. (13) onfflSMb viii. 19. (14)* rito j? vi. 22. (15) 
r\yr\ rns viii. 17 ; ix. 1, 7. (16) rrna n^pn or ]nj vi. 18; 

ix. 9, 11 seq., 17. (17) You and your seed after you, ix. 9. 
(18) yia vi. 17 ; vii. 21. (19) rrnttn and nTO (not nra) 
vi. 13, 17 ; ix. 11, 15. (20) Tbin vi. 10. (21) rfe^vi. 
21 ; ix. 3. (22) n;n wild beast, vii. 14, 21 ; viii. 1, 17,' 19 ; 
ix. 2, 5. (23) ya vi. 20 ; vii. 14. (24) DS? self-same, vii. 
13. (25) fito and pffi vii. 21 ; viii. 17 ; ix. 7. (26) tan 
and tan vi. 20 ; vii. 14, 21 ; viii. 17, 19 ; ix. 2 seq. (see vi. 
7 ; vii." 8, 23). (27) ita nta vii. 19. (28) a used dis- 
tributively, vii. 21 ; viii. 17 ; ix. 10, 15 seq. 

1 Commentary on Genesis. 



rzz ri' z :z. t: r-rs: :: ?.? 

Tils j^rzzizlj - : --- — - ^11-^-^--^ -"- ~"z_- f-zrziiiz" If 
list I z: sz:z list^ _ " " :: _ -r - •-.-:" illusive. I: zz:zi;i 
cz :zzi-zi: -E-re I :"_:.: z: ~:iz:z :: rozzzzsiti zz zzz If s: 
led that preoi~lz- :le same words and phrases and 
ideas i_:dl occur in each of the parts, and that zzzlz 
shall contain any thai are not to be fonnd in the other. 
If any such piece should be divided at random, and an 
elaborate and exhaustive seal _ be instituted to lisc : 
~l_.z: :Lt:t — :> iz. ::r :: '.'-- zzrts : : . . _ 

the :: hei and vice versa, no doubt lonz. lists ;z>uld be 
n le Jul : what i_ight be called the characteristic pe- 
- ::' - _ *:_*:-. VeTf— l~l^ss. tizsf z .1 1 z;: 
have khe slightest significance, and would have no teu- 

_ y ■ ; prove that these sundered p;z is evei had Bej ■ - 
zndindepeizl ent TZisteneeaiL .". rei e :_e prima* - : m aea 
from which the sompc ation in question was deri^ 

More c-s] zoizlly is zzis .. — ~"_en tie "zzzz:_ is 
n-'f :z :Lr lis:? :: :-:z;zz -- -\ _-.-.". .'._ ::. : Zvi:~z: :".::- 
I: is -zz_. 1 : :1s- -:;.::. — s- iz. r szz - z ~ .- 
:_ : given : is ziposite one. formed by 

the combination of two pre-existing documents. Tw : 
sections respectively .^;.zf '. :: :Lt- .1 : :zzzs-z:s zrs- 
z__ 1 :1s rs-szlzizz lizszs-zss-s z::zi is 
ss- _ sz"l - .1 .:. ::szi~:i: : ::f :: :1s- zzls-i HHf ".:;:.- 
:zs-z:s zrs- zlrz l_ : '.- :z: iz. iszzil It zle r-szsiszsz: z " - 
rion of the criteria thus furnished Every zzra- 
_zz -;"_. ^:z_z. :■: :lz:zs- iz — 11:1 zzv :: :1s- :zt :-lass 
of chart.; z z - z : : - is : 3 be f otiz i - i fzularly and consist- 
mtly ; —:__T .". :; zls- :zt :1z:zzzs-z: zzi ~z_ zizs- rs-zz- 
I z and consistency aB, in which any ;: :_t ::zer class 
;zz; :':::•:::• zzz. ii rszs-rzszl :: :1s- ::zsz ::::•-- 
zis-zz zls- izzzzlsz :: Z: ::::zz;. zz;~ izz zs :1s -zzz 
r:z"'Zri« " iz r_:~ zls- -::zzzss is z_Ztz' zzsl 
Izoizizz: — ill Iz :;zl :: l:. _ s- zls- zz:zz' -Zt- :: 
:1. rzzzzrisziss ::: :_r sizizle :z: s :z :_:z :: — ;■ .s zz zzzz- 



96 . THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH 

out constructed by the critic himself upon that pattern. 
He is arguing in a circle, which of course returns upon 
itself. He proves the documents by the criteria, and 
the criteria by the documents ; and these match as far 
as they do because they have been adjusted to one an- 
other with the utmost care. But the correspondence 
may be factitious after all. It may show the ingenuity 
of the operator, without establishing the objective real- 
ity of his conclusions. The documents which he fancies 
that he has discovered may be purely a creation of his 
own, and never have had an independent existence. 



MAKES OF P 

"We shall now examine the alleged marks of P seriatim 
with the view of discovering what significance is to be 
attached to them. 

1. The title (vi. 9). (a). A like title, " These are the 
generations," etc., occurs besides in Gen. ii. 4; v. 1 ; x. 
1 ; xi. 10, 27 ; xxv. 12, 19 ; xxxvi. 1, 9 ; xxxvii. 2 ; Num. 
iii. 1, and once out of the Pentateuch in imitation of the 
phrase as there used. 

(b). The word " generations " rmbfl occurs, apart from 
the titles just cited, Gen. x. 32 ; xxv. 13 ; Ex. vi. 16, 19 ; 
xxviii. 10 ; Num. i. 20-42, and out of the Pentateuch, 
Kuth iv. 18 ; 1 Chron. v. 7; vii. 2, 4, 9; viii. 28; ix. 9, 
34 ; xxvi. 31. 

These titles are so far from lending any support to the 
hypothesis that they can only be classed as belonging 
to P on the prior assumption of the truth of the hypothe- 
sis. That in Gen. ii. 4 is assigned to P, not by reason of 
its environment, but notwithstanding the fact that it is 
the title of a J section, to which it is assumed that it has 
been transferred from a former imaginary position at the 
beginning of ch. i., for which it is not suitable and where 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 97 

it could never have stood. In xxxvii. 2 it introduces a 
section composed of alternate paragraphs of J and E, in 
which there is not a single sentence from P until xli. 46, 
and then not another till xlvi. 6. In xxv. 19 it is followed 
by long passages from J, interspersed with paragraphs 
from E, and with scarcely anything from P. Ch. xxxvi. 
9 stands at the head of a section about which the critics 
are divided ; some refer it to P, others in large part to E 
or to JE. The natural inference would seem to be that 
these titles, prefixed alike to J and to P sections, were 
suggestive of the common authorship of those sections, 
or at least that the titles proceeded from him to whom 
Genesis owes its present form, be he author or com- 
piler. Hence Kayser 1 says, " The formula ' These are the 
generations,' which is commonly regarded as Elohistic, 
belongs just as w r ell to the other document." And again, 
" This formula, with which the history of Esau or of the 
Esauids (xxxvi. 9), as well as the history of Jacob (xxxvii. 
2) begins, is not exclusively Elohistic. The Jehovist uses 
it here as in xxv. 19, in order to commence a new section 
after the death of a patriarch." And the other passages, 
in which the word nibin is found, look in the same direc- 
tion. Gen. x. 32 occurs at the close of what is consid- 
ered a J section of a genealogy. Ex. vi. 16, 19 is in a 
genealogy which Kayser assigns to R, which in the 
judgment of "Wellhausen and Kuenen does not belong to 
P, but is a later interpolation, and which Dillmann merely 
refers to P on the general ground that genealogies as a 
rule are to be so referred ; while nevertheless he claims 
that the entire context has been seriously manipulated. 
Gen. xxv. 13 is in a genealogy which is referred to P on 
the same general ground, but is embedded in a J context. 
It would seem, consequently, that there is no very solid 
ground for the claim that this word is peculiar to P. 

1 Das Vorexilische Buch, pp. 8, 28. 
7 



98 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH 

2. " Beckoning by the years of Noah's life." 

The arbitrary character of the critical rule that state- 
ments of age are to be referred to P appears from the 
fact that in repeated instances this is done in defiance of 
the context. Thus Isaac's age at his marriage and at the 
birth of his children is cu*t out of a J context (xxv. 20, 
26) ; so that of Joseph when feeding the flock with his 
brethren (xxxvii. 2), and when he stood before Pharaoh 
(xli. 46), and the length of time that Jacob lived in Egypt 
and his age at his death (xlvii. 28) are all severed from a 
foreign context, either J or E. Moreover, the age of Jo- 
seph (Gen. 1. 26), of Caleb (Josh. xiv. 7, 10), and of 
Joshua (Josh. xxiv. 29) is by common critical consent at- 
tributed to E. 

3. " The exact statements of time respecting the course 
of the flood." 

(a) P reckons one hundred and fifty days until the 
flood began to subside (vii. 24; viii. 3). But time is 
noted with similar exactness in passages referred to the 
other documents. Thus in J seven days until the rain 
was to begin, forty days that it was to continue (vii. 4, 
10, 12) ; after forty days Noah opened the window of the 
ark (viii. 6) ; after seven days he sent forth a dove (vs. 
10, 12) ; three months (xxxviii. 24) ; in E twelve years 
(Gen. xiv. 4, 5) (so Dillmann) ; seven years (xxix. 20, 27. 
30) ; twenty, fourteen, and six years (xxxi. 38, 41) ; two 
years (xli. 1) ; seven years (xli. 48, 54) ; two and five 
years (xiv. 6). 

(b) P notes the month and the day which marked 
certain stages of the flood (vii. 11 ; viii. 4, 5, 13, 14). 
But nothing sufficiently momentous to call for such nota- 
tion occurs in the rest of Genesis, whether in JE or in 
P sections. And in the remainder of the Hexateuch it is 
limited to two things, viz., the annual sacred seasons as 
described in detail in the ritual law, and for that reason 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 99 

assigned to P, and the most signal occurrences in the 
march of Israel from Egypt to Canaan. Thus the month 
and day of their leaving Egypt are indicated (Num. 
xxxiii. 3) ; of the first gift of manna (Ex. xvi. 1) ; of the 
arrival at and departure from Sinai (Ex. xix. 1 ; Num. x. 
11) ; of setting up the sacred tabernacle (Ex. xl. 2, 17) ; 
of numbering the people and organizing the host (Num. 
i. 1, 18) ; of the return to Kadesh in the last year of the 
wandering (Num. xx. 1); of the death of Aaron (Num. 
xxxiii. 38) ; of Moses's final exposition of the law (Deut. 
i. 3) ; and of the passage of the Jordan just when the pre- 
dicted term of wandering was complete (Josh. iv. 19). 
These are all assigned to P in spite of the fact that Ex. 
xix. 1 ; Num. xx. 1 ; Deut. i. 3 ; Josh. iv. 19 are not in a 
P context ; yet they are severed from their connection 
and attributed to P because of the prior assumption that 
"he alone reckons by months and days." 

4. " The measurements of the ark." 

There is but one other structure of which measures are 
given in the Pentateuch, viz., the tabernacle and its ves- 
sels. And the reason why such detailed statements are 
made respecting them is not because P had a fancy for 
recording measures, but because these structures were 
built by divine direction and on a divine plan which was 
minutely followed. And this is not the peculiarity of a 
particular writer, for the author of Kings and the prophet 
Ezekiel detail in like manner the measures of the temple. 

5. " "Weaving in a law, ix. 1-7, and its referring back 
to i. 27 seq." 

But the same thing occurs in passages assigned to the 
other so-called documents ; thus in J, the law of mar- 
riage is woven into ii. 23, 24 ; that of levirate marriage, 
xxxviii. 8 ; intermarriage with Canaanites disapproved, 
xxiv. 3, and the institution of sacrifice, ch. iv., viii. 20, 21 ; 
in E the payment of tithes, xiv. 20 (referred to E by 



100 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH 

Dillmann), xxviii. 22. And if the reference of ix. 6 to i. 
27 links it to P, the reference of xxvii. 45 J to ix. 6 links 
it equally to J, and is thus suggestive of the common ori- 
gin of what the critics consider separate documents. 
6. " The covenant and its sign (ix. 8 sqq)." 
Three covenants with their appointed signs are spoken 
of in the Old Testament, viz.: The covenant with Noah 
and the rainbow as its sign, the covenant with Abraham 
and his seed and circumcision as its sign (xvii. 10, 11), 
and the covenant with Israel and the sabbath as its sign 
(Ex. xxxi. 13-17). These are all referred to P, and no 
sections of P but these three make mention of a cove- 
nant sign. If now the absence of this expression from all 
the rest of the P sections does not imply difference of 
authorship, why should such a significance be attributed 
to its absence from the J sections ? But in fact both the 
name and the thing are found in sections attributed to J. 
Thus Gen. xv. 18, Jehovah made a covenant with Abra- 
ham granting him the land of Canaan ; and as he asked 
for something (ver. 8) whereby he might know that he 
should inherit it, a symbol of the divine presence, fire 
and smoke, passed between the pieces of the slaughtered 
victims, as was customary for contracting parties among 
men (Jer. xxxiv. 18, 19). The word " sign " does not oc- 
cur in the passage, but Dillmann (" Commentary" in loc.) 
correctly calls this " the sign by which the covenant en- 
gagement was concluded." In Ex. iii. 12 E God gives 
Moses a sign of his divine commission to deliver Israel. 
In Ex. iv. J he gives him a series of signs to confirm the 
faith of the people in the same. The critics assign to P, 
with the exception of a few refractory clauses, Ex. xxxi. 
12-17, which makes the sabbath the sign of God's cov- 
enant with Israel. And they avow as one of their chief 
reasons for doing so (Dillmann in loc), that P must have 
recorded the sign of the Mosaic covenant as he did those 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 101 

of the covenants with Noah and Abraham. And jet they 
attribute the entire account of the contracting of the 
Mosaic covenant (Ex. xxiv. 1-11) to JE, thus separating 
what manifestly belongs together. How can P report the 
sign of the Mosaic covenant, if he has said nothing of 
such a covenant being formed ? 

7. " Diffuseness and constantly recurring formulae." 
But the emphatic iteration of the historian, who would 

impress his readers with the magnitude of the world- 
wide desolation wrought by the flood, is not to be con- 
founded with the aimless diffuseness of a wordy writer. 
The enlargement upon special features and the repeti- 
tions are due to the vastness of the theme, not to need- 
less verbosity. Thus Delitzsch commenting upon vii. 
17-20 says : " The description is a model of majestic 
simplicity, of exalted beauty with no artificial expedients. 
. . . The tautologies of the account, as it lies before 
us, picture the frightful monotomy of the illimitable 
watery surface, and the refuge floating securely above it, 
though encompassed by the terrors of death." And 
Dillmann says of vii. 16, in which the author repeats for 
the third time the entry into the ark, " It is as if the 
author, moved by the momentous character of the day, 
could not do enough in the way of detailed portraiture of 
the event." These surely are not unmeaning platitudes. 

8. " The antique description of the sources of the 
flood (vii. 11, viii. 2), reminding one of i. 6-8." 

The expression " windows of heaven " occurs twice in 
the account of the flood, and nowhere else in the Hexa- 
teuch. In both passages it is associated with rain, which 
is only sundered from it by the arbitrary partition of the 
critics ; and the form of the verb used in both implies 
that the rain was consequent upon the opening of those 
windows, and the stoppage of the rain upon closing them. 
There is not the slightest suggestion of two different con- 



102 THE GENERATION'S OF NOAH 

ceptions, whether the windows of heaven be interpreted 
as literal sluices through which the waters of a supernal 
ocean poured, or as a figurative representation of delug- 
ing rains proceeding from the clouds, which are spoken 
of as waters above the firmament. And that waters from 
the great deep were united with torrents from the sky in 
producing the flood can be no ground of literary parti- 
tion, while it is in exact accord with geologic phenomena. 

9. "The image of God (ix. 6)." 

This expression is here used with explicit allusion to i. 
26, 27, where it occurs in the account of the creation of 
man ; and it is found nowhere else in the Old Testament. 
This cannot surely be urged as a characteristic of the 
writer. 

10. " The mode of speaking of Noah's family, vi. 18 ; 
vii. 7, 13 ; viii. 16, 18, as opposed to vii. 1." 

But why should diversity of authorship be inferred be- 
cause vi. 18 has " Thou and thy sons, and thy wife, and 
thy sons' wives with thee," and vii. 1, " Thou and all thy 
house," any more than from xlv. 10, " Thou and thy 
children, and thy children's children, and thy flocks, and 
thy herds, and all that thou hast," while ver. 11 has 
" Thou and thy house, and all that thou hast," which 
plainly belong together, and are by the critics commonly 
assigned to E. Wellhausen, indeed, ascribes xlv. 10, 
with its detailed enumeration, to J, thus precisely re- 
versing the characteristic brevity imputed to J in vii. 1. 
Moreover, the detailed statement of Noah's family occurs 
(vii. 7) in a passage alleged to contain J's account of the 
entry into the ark, and in connection with expressions 
claimed to be characteristic of J, " waters of the flood," 
" clean beasts and beasts that are not clean ; " so that 
the critics find it necessary to resort to the evasion that 
the text has been manipulated by E, who substituted the 
present reading for the presumed original, " Noah and 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 103 

his house.'' And if slight variations in the form of ex- 
pression are to be made the pretext for assuming a di- 
versity of writers, it is to be observed that vii. 13 is pe- 
culiar in giving the names of Noah's sons and the number 
of their wives, and viii. 16 in mentioning the wife before 
the sons. Must these verses be referred to a distinct 
author on this account ? 

11. n'ttQ-bs all flesh (vi. 12 seq., 17, 19 ; vii. 15 seq., 
21; viii. T i7; T ix. 11, 15-17). 

This expression occurs thirteen times in the passages 
just recited in the account of the flood, to indicate the 
universality of corruption and death and the measures 
for preserving the various species of living things. As 
there was no occasion to use it elsewhere in Genesis, it 
occurs besides neither in P nor in J sections. It is 
found three times in Lev. xvii. 14, " blood the life of all 
flesh," which Dillmann says (" Commentary," p. 535) is 
a mixed passage, and he adds that " all flesh " is no sure 
proof of P. It further occurs in Num. xvi. 22 ; xxvii. 16, 
" God of the spirits of all flesh ; " and in a law of the 
consecration of the first-born of all animals (Num. xviii. 
15) , and nowhere else in the Hexateuch. J passages offer 
no substitute for it, and do not employ it for the simple 
reason that they have no occasion to express the same 
idea. It is further found repeatedly in other books of 
the Bible, so that it is no peculiar possession of P. 

12. niJ?D1 IDT male and female (vi. 19; vii. 9, 16). 
These words can only be expected where there is some 

reason for referring to the distinction of sex. They are 
found together (i. 27 ; v. 2) where the creation of man is 
spoken of, and (vi. 19 ; vii. 3, 9, 16) in the measures for 
the preservation of the various species at the time of the 
flood, but nowhere else in Genesis. They are also found 
together in the ritual laws respecting sacrifice (Lev. iii. 
1, 6) ; childbirth (Lev. xii. 7) ; uncleanness (Lev. xv. 33 ; 



104 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH 

Num. v. 3) ; vows (Lev. xxvii. 3-7) ; and nowhere else in 
the Hexateuch except Deut. iv. 16 referring to objects 
of idolatrous worship. And it is almost exclusively in 
ritual connections that the words indicative of sex are 
used at all, even separately. Thus male occurs in Gene- 
sis only in relation to circumcision (Gen. xvii. 10, 12, 14, 
23 ; xxxiv. 15, 22, 24, 25) ; and besides in a like connec- 
tion in Ex. xii. 48, P ; Josh. v. 4, E. It is further found in 
the Hexateuch in relation to sacrifice (Ex. xii. 5 ; Lev. i. 
3, 10 ; iv. 23 ; xxii. 19) ; hallowing the first-born (Ex. 
xiii. 12, 15, J ; Deut. xv. 19, D) ; directions concerning 
the priests (Lev. vi. 11 (E. V., 18), 22 (E. V., 29) ; vii. 
6 ; Num. xviii. 10) ; childbirth (Lev. xii. 2) ; copulation 
(Lev. xviii. 22 ; xx. 13, J, so Dillmann ; Num. xxxi. 17, 
18, 35) ; the census (Num. i. 2, 20, 22 ; ch. iii.; xxvi. 62 ; 
Josh. xvii. 2, JE, except only the word males, so Dill- 
mann) ; and war (Num. xxxi. 7, 17). Female occurs sep- 
arately in connection with sacrifice (Lev. iv. 28, 32 ; v. 
6) ; childbirth (Lev. xii. 5) ; and war (Num. xxxi. 15). 
As the creation, flood (for the most part), and ritual law 
are assigned to P, it is not surprising that nearly all the 
allusions to sex are in the sections and paragraphs at- 
tributed to P. And yet in the limited references which 
J is supposed to make to matters that admit of an allu- 
sion to sex, the word male finds entrance there also. It 
is alleged that J uses a different phrase, infttfl tt^tf man 
and his ivife (vii. 2), instead of male and female. Never- 
theless, male and female likewise occur (vii. 3, 9) in para- 
graphs assigned to J. The critics say that these words 
were inserted by E, the only evidence of which is that 
they are at variance with critical assumptions. And 
why R should have been concerned to insert them here, 
and not in vii. 2, does not appear. 

13. DrwnB'EJiQb according to their families (viii. 19.) 
This particular form of expression occurs once of the 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 105 

various species of animals that came forth from the ark. 
With that exception it is limited to genealogies, viz., of 
the sons of Noah (Gen. x. 5, 20, 31) ; of Esau (Gen. 
xxxvi. 40) ; and of the Levites (Ex. vi. 17, 25) ; the cen- 
sus of the tribes (Num. i.-iv., xxvi.) ; and the division of 
Canaan (Num. xxxiii. 54 ; Josh, xiii., sqq). As these are 
for the most part given to P by rule, the word is chiefly 
found in P sections as a matter of course. Yet it is 
classed as belonging to P in x. 20, 31, though the pre- 
ceding genealogy to which it relates is given to J. The 
word itself is found in J (Gen. xii. 3 ; xxviii. 14 ; Josh. vi. 
23, JE) ; and with the same preposition, " according to 
your families " (Ex. xii. 21, J) ; " according to his fami- 
lies " (Num. xi. 10, JE). 

14. f\W 13 so did lie (vi. 22). 

This is part of an emphatic declaration that the divine 
directions were punctually obeyed. Such statements are 
mostly found in connection with the ritual, and naturally 
have their place in P, to which ritual passages are regu- 
larly assigned. In Ex. xii. 28 it is preceded and followed 
by a J context, with the former of which it is intimately 
united, to which it evidently refers, and from which its 
meaning is derived. And yet it is torn from this con- 
nection and linked with a distant P paragraph solely and 
avowedly because it contains the formula in question. It 
occurs but once in the book of Genesis, where it describes 
the exactness with which Noah heeded the injunctions 
given him. The expression in vii. 5 J is less full, but this 
is no indication that it is from a different source. The 
emphatic formula connected with the general statement 
in Ex. xxxix. 32 is preceded, and that in Ex. xl. 16 is 
followed, by numerous particular statements with a 
briefer formula, but no one suspects a difference of au- 
thorship on this account. 

15. ni^l i"HO be fruitful and multiply (viii. 17; ix. 1, 7). 



106 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH 

This phrase occurs ten times in Genesis and once in 
Exodus, and in all of them is referred to P. This looks 
like a strong case at first sight, but all its seeming 
strength is dissipated upon examination. The phrase is 
an emphatic combination designed to express exuberant 
fertility ; and its meaning is repeatedly heightened by the 
addition of other synonymous words, or of intensifying 
adverbs. 1 It is used in the Pentateuch of three things, 
and of these only. 1. The blessing of fruitfulness pro- 
nounced upon animals and men at their creation (Gen. i. 
22, 28) and after the flood (viii. 17 ; ix. 1, 7). 2. The prom- 
ise to the patriarchs of the multiplication of their descend- 
ants. 3. The actual multiplication of the children of Israel 
in Egypt (Gen. xlvii. 27 ; Ex. i. 7). Since the entire account 
of the creation and almost all of the account of the flood 
are given to P, the blessings then pronounced take the 
same direction as a matter of course. Of the two state- 
ments of the multiplication of the Israelites in Egypt, Gen. 
xlvii. 27 stands in a J context, and Ex. i. 7 in an E con- 
text ; and both are sundered from their proper connection 
and referred to P principally on account of the phrase 
in question. 

In the blessing upon Abraham and his descendants in 
Gen. xvii., these two verbs are first used separately — 
" multiply," ver. 2, " make fruitful," ver. 6, and then both 
are combined in ver. 20. This climactic promise of off- 
spring to Abraham after long years of waiting and when 
every natural expectation had vanished, was confirmed 
by the announcement that it came from the Almighty 
God (ver. 1), who was able to fulfil what nature could 

1 Gen. i. 22, 28 ; ix. 1. labfcl 13*11 1*1&- 

viii. 17. imi i*i&i • • • is*i»i- 

ix. 7. imi • • • 121TD 13*11 1*1B- 
xlvii. 27. *7Ktt 12*1*H l*l&*n- 

Ex. i. 7. naft -ja&n i&sr^i i*a*i*ii ix*its*ii ins. 



i 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 107 

not accomplish. 1 This promise was repeated with ex- 
plicit allusion to this occasion by Isaac to Jacob, xxviii. 
3, by God himself to Jacob, xxxv. 11, by Jacob to Jo- 
seph, xlviii. 3, 4. In all these cases the emphatic words 
of the original promise, " Almighty God," " be fruitful," 
" multiply," are repeated together. These are uniformly 
assigned to P, not because of the connection in which 
they stand, but because of the critical assumption that 
these words are characteristic of P, and must always be 
attributed to him. These comprise all the instances in 
the Hexateuch, in which " be fruitful " and " multiply " 
occur together, except Lev. xxvi. 9, which Driver assigns 
to another than P, and Dillmann gives to J. 

16. ftna D^pn or jrE, establish or ordain a covenant 
(vi. 18 ; ix. 9, 11 seq., 17). 

These expressions are said to be characteristic of P, 
while J habitually uses instead n*H3 Jin 3, conclude a cove- 
nant. The fact is that there is a difference in the signifi- 
cation of these terms, which should be noted, and which 
is the true and sufficient explanation of their usage, with- 
out the need of having recourse to the proclivities of dis- 
tinct writers. The first two expressions are u£ed exclu- 
sively of God as instituting covenants with men ; establish 
(lit. " cause to stand ") indicates the permanence and sta- 
bility of the arrangement divinely made ; ordain (lit. 
" give " ), suggests its divine appointment or bestowment. 
These are applied to two covenants granted in perpetu- 
ity, that to Noah (establish, vi. 8 ; ix. 9, 11, 17 ; ordain, E. 
V. "make," ix. 12) and to Abraham {establish, xvii. 7, 
19, 21 ; Ex. vi. 4 ; ordain, E. V. " make," Gen. xvii. 2) ; 
and ordain, E. Y. " give," is once besides applied to the 
covenant of a perpetual priesthood granted to Phinehas 

1 Gen. xvii. 1, 2. ^fc -^3 *pna "n^l ■ • ■ "HID 5» ^»- 
ver. 6. -jatt 1^-23 "p* Warn- 

ver. 20. -^ *mi22 ina irvmm ina wi&m 



108 THE GENEKATIONS OF NOAH 

(Num. xxv. 12). Conclude (lit. " cut," E. Y. "make") 
according to its original signification alludes to the sac- 
rificial rites attending the ratification of a covenant, and 
the cutting of the victim asunder for the contracting par- 
ties to pass between the separated pieces (Jer. xxxiv. 18, 
19). It properly refers, therefore, to the act of conclud- 
ing a covenant, with predominant allusion, in some in- 
stances at least, to the accompanying ceremonies. It is 
accordingly used — 

a. Of covenants between men ; thus between Abraham 
and Abimelech (Gen. xxi. 27, 32 E), Isaac and Abime- 
lech (xxvi. 28 J), Laban and Jacob (xxxi. 44 E), Israel and 
Canaanites (Ex. xxiii. 32 E ; xxxiv. 12, 15 J ; Deut. vii. 2 D ; 
Josh. ix. 6 sqq. E), Joshua and Israel (Josh. xxiv. 25 E). 

b. Of the covenants of God with men, when the attention 
is directed to the ratification rather than to the perpetu- 
ity of the covenant. It occurs once of God's covenant 
with Abraham on the occasion of its formal ratification 
in condescension to the customs of men, when a symbol 
of the Divine Being, by whom the engagement was made, 
passed between the parts of the slaughtered victims (Gen. 
xv. 18 J). But when the climax was reached and the faith 
of childless Abraham had been sufficiently tried, the 
covenant conveying the land of Canaan was more explic- 
itly unfolded as a covenant, in which the Almighty God 
pledged himself to be a God unto him and to his seed ; a 
covenant that was not merely entered into, but declared 
to be everlasting, and the stronger word establish is hence- 
forth used in relation to it (Gen. xvii. 7). Conclude (lit. 
" cut ") is invariably used of God's covenant with Israel, 
ratified by sacrifice (Ex. xxiv. 8 J), and solemnly renewed 
(Ex. xxxiv. 10, 27 J ; Deut. iv. 23 ; v. 2, 3 ; ix. 9 ; xxviii. 
69 (E. Y. xxix. 1) ; xxix. 11, 13, 24 (E. V. vs. 12, 14, 25) ; 
xxxi. 16). Establish is never used in speaking of this 
covenant with Israel, as of that with Abraham, because 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 109 

the element of perpetuity and inviolability was wanting. 
It was liable to be broken. It was once actually ruptured 
by the crime of the golden calf and again by their rebel- 
lion, when the spies brought an evil report of the prom- 
ised land and they were in consequence condemned to 
die in the wilderness. The people were ever afresh re- 
minded that its persistence was conditioned on their own 
fidelity. Only once in the Pentateuch is its perpetuation 
set before them as a blessing of the future ; i if they will 
walk in the Lord's statutes, he will establish his covenant 
with them (Lev. xxvi. 3, 9 J, Dillm.). It is quite likely, 
however, that the phrase is here used in the secondary 
sense of performing or fulfilling, as it is in relation to the 
covenant with Abraham in Deut. viii. 18. The occurrence 
of what is claimed as a P phrase in J and D shows that it 
is not the peculiar property of any one of the so-called 
Hexateuchal documents. And the superficial exegesis 
which finds here only an unmeaning difference of usage 
in different writers overlooks the profound significance 
which underlies the constant employment of these sev- 
eral terms. 

17. " You and your seed after you " (ix. 9). 

This or the like phrase, with a simple change of the 
pronoun, is uniformly ascribed to P. It occurs in the 
promise to Noah (ix. 9) ; Abraham (xvii. 7 bis, 8, 9, 10, 
19) ; Jacob (xxxv. 12) ; repeated by Jacob to Joseph (xlviii. 
4) ; the injunction to Aaron (Ex. xxviii. 43), and the prom- 
ise to Phinehas (Num. xxv. 13). But the expression is not 
uniform even in passages assigned to P, e.g., " to thee and 
to thy seed with thee " (Gen. xxviii. 4 ; Num. xviii. 19) ; 
" to him and to his seed throughout their generations " (Ex. 
xxx. 21). Why then should a slight additional variation 

1 And once besides in the Old Testament (Ezek. xvi, 60, 62), where, 
however, it is based not on the fidelity of the people, but on the pre- 
venient grace of God. 



110 THE GENEKATIONS OF NOAH 

in three additional passages be thought to indicate a dif- 
ferent author? viz., "to thee and to thy seed for ever" 
(Gen. xiii. 15 J) ; " unto thee and unto thy seed " (xxvi. 3 
R. ; xxviii. 13 J), especially as one author in Deuteronomy 
uses all these phrases; "unto them and to their seed 
after them " (i. 8) ; " unto them and to their seed " (xi. 
9) ; " thee and thy seed forever " (xxviii. 46). 

18. 21-j die, expire, for which J is said to use mE (vi. 
17 ; vii.~21). 

This word is only found in poetry except in the Hexa- 
teuch, where it is an emphatic word, only used of the 
death of venerated patriarchs or of great catastrophes. 
It occurs twice in relation to those that perished in the 
flood (vi. 17 ; vii. 21) ; also of those who were cut off by 
divine judgment for the rebellion of Korah (Num. xvii. 
27, 28, E. V. vs. 12, 13 ; xx. 3 bis), or the trespass of Achan 
(Josh. xxii. 20). It is used in connection with T\M2 died, 
of the death of Abraham (Gen. xxv. 8), Ishmael (ver. 17), 
Isaac (xxxv. 29), and with the equivalent phrase, " was 
gathered to his people," of Jacob (xlix. 33) ; also of Aaron 
(Num. xx. 29), where the preceding verse has riTD. 

The critics improperly sunder Gen. vii. 22, which has 
fiTa, from its connection with ver. 21, which has y^ 3 as- 
signing the former for this reason to J and the latter to 
P ; although ver. 22 directly continues ver. 21, and is a 
comprehensive restatement in brief, added with the view 
of giving stronger expression to the thought. Num. xx. 
3 b is cut out of an E connection, and referred to P on ac- 
count of this word 2"to, though the similar passage, Num. 
xiv. 37, shows that it belongs where it stands. This 
word could not be expected in the passages assigned 
to J, since they record no death in all the Hexateuch 
except those of Haran (Gen. xi. 28), the wife of Judah 
(xxxviii. 12), and a king of Egypt (Ex. ii. 23) ; in all 
which the word tvra is appropriately used. The passages 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 111 

assigned to P in likp manner use fctfia of the antediluvi- 
ans (Gen. v.), Terah (xi. 32), Sarah (xxiii. 2), the kings of 
Edom (xxxvi. 33-39 so Dillmann), Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 
x. 2), and several times besides as an emphatic addition 
to yi3L There is in all this no difference of usage what- 
ever, and certainly nothing to suggest diversity of author- 
ship. 

19. mnOn and tint destroy, not tvrva blot out, J (vi. 
13,17; ix. : ll,15). " 

What is here claimed as a P word occurs but once in 
P outside of the account of the flood (Gen. xix. 29) ; 
while it occurs repeatedly in J (Piel form, Gen. xiii. 10 ; 
xix. 13 ; xxxviii. 9 ; Ex. xxxii. 7 ; Deut. xxxii. 5) ; and in 
E (Piel, Ex. xxi. 26 ; Num. xxxii. 15 ; Josh. xxii. 33), in 
J (Hiphil, Gen. xviii. 28, 31, 32 ; xix. 13, 11 ; Ex. xii. 23). 
And the alleged J word nntt occurs four times in the 
narrative of the flood (vi. 7 ; vii. 4, 23 bis) ; and five times 
besides in the Hexateuch, twice in J (Ex. xxxii. 32, 33) ; 
twice in E (Ex. xvii. 14) ; and once in P (Num. v. 23). 
The writer is led to use nnE in vi. 13, 17 because of the 
twofold signification of the word, which may have respect 
to character or condition and may mean " to corrupt " or 
" to destroy." All flesh had corrupted their way, where- 
fore God was resolved to destroy them. In vii. 23 ntra, 

J T T > 

though referred to J, is in connection with the enumera- 
tion of " man, beast, creeping thing, and fowl of heaven," 
which is reckoned a characteristic of P, and can only be 
accounted for by the assumption that it has been inserted 
byK 

20. "Tbin beget (vi. 10), for which J is said to use nb\ 
As is remarked by Dillmann (" Commentary on Gen.," v. 

3), Tbin, said of the father, belongs to greater precision 
of style. Hence this is uniformly used in the direct line 
of the genealogies leading to the chosen race, which are 
drawn up with special fulness and formality (Gen. v.; vi. 



112 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH 

10 ; xi. 10 sqq.; xxv. 19 ; Num. xxvi. 29, 58). And *\bh is 
as uniformly used of the side lines, thus iv. 18 (in the 
line of Cain), x. 8, 13, 15, 24, 26 (line of Ham, and that 
of Shem outside of the chosen race), xxii. 23 (Bethuel), 
xxv. 3 (Keturah). The only apparent exceptions are 
not really such ; in x. 24 Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber head 
a divergent line proceeding with Joktan (cf. xi. 12-17). 
In xi. 27 Haran begat (TblPi) Lot, but this is included in 
the genealogy with Abraham, just as (xi. 26) Terah begat 
(Tbin) three sons, and Noah (v. 32 ; vi. 10) begat (TblPl) 
three sons, these being included in a genealogy of the 
direct line. In xvii. 20 the promise that Ishmael shall 
beget (Tbv) twelve princes is not in a genealogy, and 
besides, it is part of a promise to Abraham. The varia- 
tion, which the critics attribute to distinct writers, is sim- 
ply the carrying out of a consistent and uniform plan by 
the same writer. Besides, it is only by critical legerde- 
main that ib^ is restricted to J. Gen. xxii. 23 is referred 
to J notwithstanding the allusion by P in xxv. 20, which 
makes it necessary to assume that P had stated the same 
thing in some other passage now lost. This carries with 
it xxii. 20, whose allusion to xi. 29 requires the latter to 
be torn from its connection and referred to J. And in 
xxv. 3 ib^ alternates with ifi^- which is made a criterion 
of P in ch. x. ; comp. also xlvi. 9 sqq. ; Ex. vi. 15 sqq. 

21. fibptf eating (E. Y. food, vi. 21 ; ix. 3). 

Delitzsch (Commentary on Gen., vi. 21) says, "bbtfb to 
eat, and bDtfttb for food," and quotes with approval from 
Driver, " a thing is given bbtfb on a particular occasion, 
it is given nbpxb for a continuance." It is said that J 
uses bD^tt as its equivalent; but bowa and Sibptf occur 
together in Gen. vi. 21 P, where the difference is plainly 
shown ; bptftt denotes that which is eaten, nbptf the act of 
eating ; ribDS! occurs seven times in the Hexateuch. In 
each instance some particular article of food is prescribed 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 113 

for constant eating ; and these are the only passages in 
which this is done. In Gen. i. 29, 30, to man and beast 
at the creation ; vi. 21 to Noah and those that were with 
him in the ark during the flood ; ix. 3 to man after the 
flood ; Ex. xvi. 15 to Israel manna during their abode in 
the wilderness ; Lev. xi. 39 to Israel animal food allowed 
by the law ; xxv. 6 to man and beast during the sabbat- 
ical year. 

As all these verses are assigned to P, and these com- 
prise all the passages of this description, it is not sur- 
prising that nbDS does not occur in J. But some nice 
critical work is required to effect this. Ex. xvi. 15 has 
to be split in two ; its first clause is said to belong to J, 
but its last clause is attributed to P because of this very 
word (so Dillmann). Kayser (" Das Yorexilische Buch," 
p. 76) refers Lev. xxv. 1-7 to another than P ; Kuenen 
(" Hexateuch," p. 286) refers it to P', who is distinguished 
from P, or as he prefers to call him, P", the author of 
" the historico-legislative work extending from the cre- 
ation to the settlement in Canaan " (p. 288). 

22. srn wild beast (vii. 14, 21 ; viii. 1, 17, 19 ; ix. 2, 5). 

There is no difference in this between the passages re- 
spectively assigned to the so-called documents. n*n 
beast is distinguished from "12712 cattle in P (i. 21, 25 ; 
vii. 14, 21 ; viii. 1 ; ix. 10), but so it is in J (ii. 20). In 
i. 30 ; viii. 19 ; ix. 2, 5 P, it is used in a more compre- 
hensive sense and includes domestic animals precisely as 
it does in ii. 19 J. In vi. 20 P nana cattle is used in 
a like comprehensive sense and embraces all quadrupeds 
as in vii. 2 J. In the rest of Genesis and of the Hexa- 
teuch, while rpn beast occurs in the sense of wild beasts 
in Gen. xxxvii. 20, 33 JE, Ex. xxiii. 29 E, Deut. vii. 22 
D, it is nowhere used in this sense in P, to which it is 
conceded that Lev. xvii. 13 ; xxv. 7 ; xxvi. 6, 22, do not 
properly belong ; and in Num. xxxv. 3 P, where beasts 
8 



114 THE GENERATIONS OP NOAH 

are distinguished from cattle, it is nevertheless plain that 
domesticated animals are meant. 

23. -pa kind (vi. 20 ; vii. 14). 

This word is only used when there is occasion to refer 
to various species of living things, as in the account of 
the creation (Gen. i., ten times), and of the preservation 
of animals in the ark (vi. 20, four times ; vii. 14, four 
times), and in the law respecting clean and unclean ani- 
mals (Lev. xi., nine times ; Deut. xiv., four times). It 
occurs but once besides in the entire Old Testament 
(Ezek. xlvii. 10), where reference is made to the various 
species of fish. As the creation, the flood (in large part), 
and the ritual law are assigned to P, and there is no oc- 
casion to use the word elsewhere, it cannot be expected 
in passages attributed to J; not even in vii. 2, 3, 8, 
where attention is drawn to the distinction maintained 
between clean and unclean rather than the variety of 
species preserved, which is sufficiently insisted upon vi. 
20 and vii. 14. 

24. D22? self-same (vii. 13). 

This is an emphatic form of speech, which was but 
sparingly used, and limited to important epochs whose 
exact time is thus signalized. It marks two momentous 
days in the history, that on which Noah entered into the 
ark (Gen. vii. 13), and that on which Moses the leader 
and legislator of Israel went up Mount Nebo to die 
(Deut. xxxii. 48). With these exceptions it occurs mainly 
in ritual connections. It is used twice in connection with 
the original institution of circumcision in the family of 
Abraham (Gen. xvii. 23, 26) ; three times in connection 
with the institution of the passover on the day that the 
Loed brought Israel out of Egypt (Ex. xii. 17, 41, 51) ; 
and five times in Lev. xxiii., the chapter ordaining the 
sacred festivals, to mark severally the day on which the 
sheaf of the first-fruits was presented in the passover 



THE FLOOD (OH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 115 

week (ver. 14), which is emphasized afresh on the ob- 
servance of the first passover in Canaan (Josh. v. 11) ; 
also the day on which the two wave loaves were brought 
at the feast of weeks (ver. 21) ; and with triple repeti- 
tion the great day of atonement (vs. 28-30). Since ritual 
passages are regularly assigned to P, and the two em- 
phatic moments in the history calling for the use of this 
expression have likewise been given to him, it might not 
seem surprising if it had been absolutely limited to P. 
And yet it is found once in an admitted JE section 
(Josh. x. 27), showing that it can have place in these sec- 
tions as well as others, if there is occasion for its em- 
ployment. 

25. y*W creep or sivarm, and fniD creeping or swarming 
things (vii. 21 ; viii. 17 ; ix. 7). 

YytD creeping things occurs among other species of ani- 
mals at the creation (i. 20), in the flood (vii. 21), and in 
the ritual law as a source of defilement (Lev. v. 2 ; xxii. 
5), or prohibited as food (Lev. xi., ten times ; Deut. xiv. 
19) ; and it is found nowhere else in the Old Testament. 

The verb "plE is used with its cognate noun at the 
creation (i. 20, 21), and flood (vii. 21), and in the law of 
unclean meats (Lev. xi. 29, 41, 42, 43, 46) ; and in the 
sense of swarming or great fertility in the blessings pro- 
nounced upon animals and men after the flood (viii. 17 ; 
ix. 7) ; the immense multiplication of the children of Is- 
rael in Egypt (Ex. i. 7) ; and the production of countless 
frogs (Ex. vii. 28, E. Y. viii. 3, repeated Ps. cv. 30) ; 
and it is used but once besides in the entire Old Testa- 
ment. In the creation, flood, and ritual law it is given 
to P as a matter of course ; but it occurs in J in Ex. vii. 
28 ; and in Ex. i. 7 it is only saved for P by cutting it 
out of an E connection. 

26. iOW creep and tetn creeping thing. 

These words occur in the account of the creation (i. 



116 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH 

21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30) ; and the flood (vi. 20 ; vii. 14, 21, 
23 ; viii. 17, 19 ; ix. 2, 3) P ; also vi. 7 ; vii. 8, 23, in a J 
connection ; in the ritual law respecting clean and un- 
clean beasts (Lev. xi. 44, 46 P ; xx. 25 J) (so Dillmann) ; 
and in the prohibition of making an image of anything 
for worship (Deut. iv. 18) ; and in but three passages be- 
sides in the Old Testament (Ps. lxix. 35 ; civ. 20 ; Ezek. 
xxxviii. 20). Their signification limits their occurrence 
to a class of passages that are mostly assigned to P, 
though the noun is likewise found in D, and both noun 
and verb are only excluded from J by critical legerde- 
main. 

27. I'^tt ^fcfc exceedingly (vii. 19). 

This duplicated intensive adverb is referred to P also 
(Ex. i. 7; Num. xiv. 7), and with a preposition prefixed 
(Gen. xvii. 2, 6, 20). But it is admitted to belong to J 
(Gen. xxx. 43). 

28. 3 used distributively (vii. 21 ; viii. 17 ; ix. 10, 15 
seq.). " 

But it occurs in JE likewise (Ex. x. 15). 

It appears from the above examination of these words 
and phrases that they are for the most part found in the 
other so-called documents as well as in P ; when they are 
limited to P or preponderate there, it is due not to the 
writer's peculiarity, but to the nature of the subject, and 
in many cases to critical artifice. 

MARKS OF J 

The following are alleged to be indications of J : 

1. " Distinction of clean and unclean beasts (vii. 2, 8), 

mention of altar and sacrifice " (viii. 20, 21 ; comp. iv. 

3,4). 

For the reason given under Ch. vi. 1-8, Marks of J, No. 

11, it was as Jehovah chiefly that God was worshipped, that 



THE FLOOD (CII. VI. 9-IX. 17) 117 

prayer was addressed to hiin, and offerings made to him. 
Hence it is almost exclusively in Jehovah sections that 
mention is made of altars and sacrifices ; and the dis- 
tinction of clean and unclean beasts here made had rela- 
tion to sacrifice. 

The notion of the critics that, according to P, sacrifice 
was first introduced by Moses at Sinai, is utterly prepos- 
terous and altogether unwarranted. It is preposterous 
to suppose that the pious patriarchs, who were honored 
with special divine communications and were in favor 
with God, engaged in no acts of worship. And it is 
wholly without warrant, for there is no suggestion of any 
such idea in the paragraphs assigned to P. This is one 
of those perverse conclusions which are drawn from the 
absolute severance of what belongs together, and can 
only be properly understood in combination. The prev- 
alent absence of allusion to sacrifice in passages where 
God is spoken of as Elohim simply arises from the cir- 
cumstance that Jehovah is the proper name to use in 
such a connection. 

2. " Prominence given to the inherent sinfulness of 
men" (viii. 21). 

Jehovah's gracious revelation has for its object the re- 
covery of men from sin and their restoration to the di- 
vine favor. Now, since the disease and the remedy go 
together, it is quite appropriate that human sin should 
be chiefly portrayed in Jehovah sections. 

3. ir\tD sn tthfcji a man and Ms wife, applied to beasts, " a 
male and his female " (vii. 2), used instead of " male and 
female." See above, Marks of P, No. 12. 

As these terms are nowhere else applied to the lower 
animals in J, it is not strange that they are not so ap- 
plied in P sections. But a fairly parallel case occurs in 
Ex. xxvi. 3, 5, 6, 17 P, where terms strictly denoting 
human beings receive a wider application, curtains and 



118 THE OENEEATIONS OF NOAH 

tenons being said to be coupled, " a woman to her sis- 
ter," i.e., one to another, as it is in Ex. xxxvi. 10, 12, 13, 
22. Moreover, in Gen. viii. 19 nriSttJ'a is used to denote 
species in animals, while "pfc is always used in this sense 
elsewhere. Yet both are alike referred to P by the crit- 
ics. With what consistency, then, can a difference of 
writers be inferred from the fact that IfflBKl tt^tf is used 
in one verse (vii. 2) instead of J-QpDI *DT ? 

4. D^b in days or at the completion of days (vii. 4, 10). 
This expression occurs nowhere else in the Hexateuch 

in this sense ; but the preposition is similarly used (xvii. 
21 P ; see Dillmann on Gen. iii. 8, to which he refers 
vii. 4 as a parallel). 

5. 1Sb~b$ at or unto his heart (vi. 6 ; viii. 21). 
Nowhere else in the Hexateuch. 

6. "VllSa because of (viii. 21). 

This occurs only in narrative passages, viz., 15 times in 
Genesis, 7 times in the first twenty chapters of Exodus, 
and nowhere else in the Hexateuch. It is 3 times at- 
tributed to R (Ex. ix. 14, 16 bis) ; and with this excep- 
tion the passages in which it is found are divided be- 
tween J and E, to whom the great bulk of the narrative 
in the Hexateuch is ascribed. 

7. ^rrbs every living thing (viii. 21 ; iii. 20), contrary 
to vi. 19 P, ^nrrbl all the living things. 

These words do not occur together again in the Hexa- 
teuch, whether with the article or without it. The inser- 
tion or omission of the article in such a phrase is a very 
slender ground on which to base the assertion of a dif- 
ference of writers, especially as its insertion in vi. 19 ap- 
pears to be due to the qualifying expression that follows, 
" all the living things of all flesh." 

8. ilSBJ toas overspread (ix. 19). 

Dillmann says that P writes *nsj (x. 5, 32) ; and then 
he annuls the force of his remark by adding, " not quite 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-LX. 17) 119 

in the same sense." If the sense is not the same, why 
should not the word be different ? 

Dillmann further calls attention to the fact that differ- 
ent expressions are used for the same thing in different 
parts of the narrative of the flood. Thus : 

9. P, in vi. 16, speaks of nn'2 a light ; but J (viii. 6) of 
l^n a window in the ark. 

There is some obscurity in the description of the for- 
mer which makes its precise construction doubtful. 
Dillmann thinks that it was an opening a cubit wide, ex- 
tending the entire length of all the four sides of the ark 
just beneath the roof, for the admission of light and air, 
and only interrupted by the beams which supported the 
roof. The window was a latticed opening, whose shape 
and dimensions are not given. There is nothing to for- 
bid its exact correspondence and identity with the open- 
ing before mentioned. And there is nothing strange in 
the use of one term to describe it when considered sim- 
ply as intended for the admission of light, and another 
term when reference is made to the lattice which Noah 
had occasion to unfasten. 

10. wp? living substance (vii. 4, 23). 

This is found but once besides in the Old Testament 
(Deut. xi. 6). In both the former passages it is given to 
J, notwithstanding the mixed state of the text, as the 
critics regard it, in ver. 23. It there stands in combina- 
tion with " man, cattle, creeping things, and fowl of the 
heaven," and " who were with him," both which are ac- 
counted marks of P. 

11. bj? lightened or abated (viii. 8, 11). 

As this word is nowhere else used in a like sense by J 
it is not strange that it does not occur in P. And as two 
different words are employed (viii. 1, 3) to express a sim- 
ilar thought, both being referred by the critics to the 
same writer, why should the use of a third word bearing 



120 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH 

an analogous sense compel us to think of a different 
writer altogether ? 

12. fijn (Piel) keep alive (vii. 3) J, while (vi. 19, 20) P 
has n;nn (Hiphil). 

But this can be no indication of a diversity of writers, 
for both forms occur repeatedly in passages assigned 
to J elsewhere ; thus Piel, Gen. xii. 12 ; xix. 32, 34 ; 
Hiphil, xix. 19 ; xlvii. 25. Both occur in the same con- 
nection (Num. xxxi. 15, 18) and are referred to the same 
writer. The Hiphil is but once again referred to P 
(Josh. ix. 20), and the Piel, which occurs in the same 
connection (ver. 15), is only given to another by a crit- 
ical dissection of the verse. The Piel and Hiphil of this 
verb are used indiscriminately as those of nniD are, which 
are both given to P ; see above, Marks of P, No. 19. 

13. b^QEin ^n waters of the flood (vii. 7, 10 ; not so vi. 
17). 

The attempt to create a distinction between the so- 
called documents in the mode of speaking of the flood is 
not successful. When the flood is first mentioned the 
unusual word b*fiitt is defined by the added phrase 
" waters upon the earth " (vi. 17 ; vii. 6 P). We then 
read (vii. 7, 10 J) of " waters of the flood," and the same 
in ix. 11 P. Then (vii. 17 J) of " the flood " simply, 
and so in ix. 15, 28 P. 

It thus appears that the so-called characteristics of J 
are no characteristics at all. They are for the most part 
words or phrases of rare occurrence, several of them be- 
ing found nowhere else, and they cannot therefore be ad- 
duced as belonging to the writer's ordinary style. And 
there is not a single instance that is suggestive of a di- 
versity of documents. 

The critical arguments for the severance of this narra- 
tive thus collapse entirely upon examination. And yet 
this is accounted one of the most plausible cases of crit- 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-LX. 17) 121 

ical partition. As it fails here, so it does everywhere 
throughout the Pentateuch. The evidences of unity of 
authorship are everywhere too strong to be overcome by 
the devices which the critics employ for the purpose. 



NUMERICAL CORRESPONDENCE. 

The attempt has been made to discover numerical 
correspondences in the duration of the flood, but with- 
out any marked success. The rains began on the 17th 
day of the 2d month, and on the 27th day of the 2d 
month in the following year the earth was again dry 
(viii. 14). If the reckoning was by lunar years of 354 
days, this would amount precisely to a solar year of 365 
days. But this was plainly not the case, since the 5 
months to the resting of the ark (viii. 4 ; comp. vii. 11) 
amounted to 150 days (vii. 24). Five lunar months 
would yield but 147 days. Evidently the reckoning is 
by months of 30 days. If the year consisted of twelve 
such months, the flood lasted 371 days ; if 5 intercalary 
days were added, as in the ancient Egyptian year, the 
flood lasted 376 clays. As neither of these sums corre- 
spond with any customary division of time, critics have 
claimed that the text has been remodelled by a later 
hand, and a conflicting computation inserted, according 
to which the flood lasted 300 days, rising to its height in 
150 days (vii. 24), and subsiding for an equal term. To 
be sure the period of subsidence is nowhere so reckoned, 
but the critics suppose that it must have been intended, 
since 75 days, one-half of this term, elapsed between the 
resting of the ark on the 17th of the 7th month (viii. 4), 
and the appearance of the tops of the mountains on the 
1st of the 10th month (ver. 5). But it was 4 months and 
26 days after this before the earth was sufficiently dry 
for Noah to leave the ark. There is no conflict of state- 



122 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH 

ment, therefore, and no need of remodelling the text. 
The writer was more concerned for the historical truth 
of his statement than for a numerical correspondence, 
such as the critics are so eager to discover, and which 
the LXX. sought to introduce by changing 17th to 27th 
in vii. 11, thus making the flood continue exactly a year. 

THE ASSYEIAN FLOOD TABLETS. 

The Babylonian account of the flood, as reported by 
Berosus, has long been known to bear a striking similar- 
ity to the narrative in Genesis. This has been recently 
confirmed, and our knowledge of the relation between 
them materially increased by the discovery of the cunei- 
form flood tablets belonging to the library of Assurbani- 
pal, and copied from a much older Babylonish original. 
The coincidences between the Babylonish and the He- 
brew account are so pervading and remarkable as clearly 
to establish a community of origin ; while, on the other 
hand, the divergences are so numerous and so serious as 
to make it evident that neither has been directly copied 
from the other. The suggestion of Friedrich Delitzsch 
and of Haupt, that the story was first adopted by the 
Jews at the time of the Babylonish captivity, is very 
justly repelled by Schrader and Dillmann on two dis- 
tinct grounds. 1. "It is utterly insupposable that the 
Jews should have appropriated from their foes, the Bab- 
ylonians, a local tradition altogether foreign to them- 
selves originally, and saturated by the most silly polythe- 
ism." 2. Its inseparable connection with portions of the 
Pentateuch which are demonstrably pre-exilic. The 
manifest allusions of the earlier prophets to passages in 
the Pentateuch, which all divisive critics agree to refer 
to J, make it impossible to assign that so-called document 
to a later period than the seventh or eighth century be- 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 123 

fore Christ. Beyond all question the story of the flood 
was known to the Jews at that time, and formed a part 
of their sacred tradition. The fact that Noah is not ex- 
plicitly mentioned in the subsequent Scriptures until Isa. 
liv. 9 (which the critics pronounce exilic) and Ezek. xiv. 
14, 20, as a purely negative testimony is of no force 
against the positive proof above adduced. Dr. Dillmann 
shows the futility of the argument from that source by 
adducing the parallel case of the narrative of the fall 
(Gen. iii.), 1 which is nowhere else alluded to in the Old 
Testament. Kuenen, Schrader and others maintain that 
the account of the flood was first brought from Assyria 
or Babylonia in the seventh or eighth century before 
Christ. But, as Dillman urges, why should the Jews have 
accepted this foreign story, so variant in many particulars 
from their own style of thought, and enshrined it in the 
place which it occupies in their sacred traditions and the 
line of their ancestry, if it was altogether unknown to 
them before ? And why, he asks, should it be imagined 
that the story of the flood never spread to surrounding 
nations until so late a period as this ? And if to other 
nations, why not to Israel? The readiness with which 
high antiquity is conceded to the productions and beliefs 
of other nations, often on the most slender grounds, while 
the opposite propensity is manifested in the case of Is- 
rael, and everything assigned to the latest possible period, 
is, to say the least, very singular and is not very credit- 
able to scholarly impartiality and fair dealing. 

The well-attested fact of the migration of Abraham, 
or the ancestors of Israel, from Ur of the Chaldees, 
gives a point of connection which on any theory of the 
relation of these narratives satisfactorily explains both 
their agreement and their divergence. Whether Abra- 
ham derived his knowledge of the flood from traditions 

1 The critics themselves refer J to the eighth century b. c. 



124 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH 

current in the region of Ur, which were purged of their 
polytheistic taint by his own purer faith and that of his 
descendants, or whether, as I believe, a truer account 
free from mythological conceit was transmitted to him in 
the line of a pious ancestry, we need not now inquire. 
But on either view of the case an obvious solution of the 
whole matter, and one against which no serious objec- 
tion can be urged, is that Abraham brought with him to 
Canaan substantially that conception of primeval history 
which subsequently formed part of the faith of his de- 
scendants. There is not the slightest reason for the as- 
sumption that this was a post-Mosaic addition to Israel's 
creed. 

The only further question with which we are at pres- 
ent concerned, is as to the bearing of the flood tablets 
upon critical partition. The patent fact is that they 
stand in equal relation to the entire Hebrew narrative as 
an undivided whole, with no suggestion of any such 
line of partition as the critics undertake to draw in it, 
but both having a like affinity for, and exhibiting a like 
divergence from, all that lies on either side of the line, or 
what the critics severally denominate J and P. 

The Chaldean account agrees, in the first place, with 
what is affirmed in P and J paragraphs alike, that there 
was a great flood, divinely sent, which destroyed all men 
and animals except those saved in a single vessel with 
one man, to whom the coming of the catastrophe had 
been disclosed, and who had gathered into this vessel 
different species of tame and wild beasts, and the mem- 
bers of his own family. The Chaldean account adds his 
relatives, and male and female servants, together with his 
valuables and a pilot. Assurance is given in both ac- 
counts that mankind should not be again destroyed by a 
flood ; the Chaldean adds that other forms of judgment 
might take its place, as wild beasts, famine, and pesti- 



THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-LX. 17) 125 

lence. There is an intimation near the close of the Chal- 
dean account that the flood was sent because men had 
offended Bel, one of the gods; but no prominence is 
given, as in the Hebrew, to the thought that it was a 
righteous retribution. It is ascribed rather to the hasty 
temper of Bel, which was censured by the other gods. 
And the deliverance was not due to the righteousness of 
any that were saved. Bel was indignant that any escaped 
the destruction which he had intended for the entire 
race, and was only calmed by the remonstrance of other 
deities. 

There are special points of agreement between the 
Chaldean account and the paragraphs assigned to P, 
viz., that the patriarch was divinely directed to build the 
vessel, and that of prescribed dimensions, length, breadth, 
and height (though the measures are not the same), to 
pitch it within and without with bitumen, and to stock 
it with provisions; that he entered it on the very day 
that the flood came, or the day before ; that the great 
deep as well as the heavens supplied the waters of the 
flood ; that the ark rested on a mountain, though the lo- 
cality is not the same. 1 

There are also special points of agreement between the 
Chaldean account and the paragraphs assigned to J, viz., 
the mention of a covering to the ark, of the shutting of 
the door (by Jehovah in the Hebrew, by the patriarch 
himself in the Chaldean) ; of the duration of the storm 
(though the time stated is different, in the Hebrew forty 
days and forty nights, in the Chaldean six days and six or 
perhaps seven nights) ; of the opening of a window (in 
the Hebrew after, in the Chaldean before, the resting of 
the ark) ; of the sending forth of birds to ascertain 

1 Dr. Haupt at one time understood the tablets to state in addition that 
a celestial how was displayed after the occupants of the ark had landed. 
But he has since abandoned this translation as incorrect. 



126 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH 

whether the flood had ceased (in the Chaldean seven 
days, in the Hebrew forty days after the resting of the 
ark ; in the Chaldean a dove, a swallow, and a raven, each 
immediately upon the return of its predecessor, the last 
not returning at all ; in the Hebrew a raven, which did not 
return, then a dove, thrice at intervals of seven days, first 
returning as it went, the second time with a fresh olive 
leaf, the third time not returning) ; and after disembark- 
ing, of the erection of an altar and offering sacrifice, 
whose sweet savor was agreeable to the divinity (in the 
Chaldean the gods gathered like flies about the sweet 
odor). The Chaldean makes no mention of the distinc- 
tion of clean and unclean beasts recognized in the He- 
brew. 

The Chaldean account departs entirely from the He- 
brew in representing the patriarch as apprehending the 
ridicule of the people if he should build the ship (ac- 
cording to a probable understanding of it), and pleading 
that such a ship had never before been constructed, and 
in portraying his distress at beholding the scene of deso- 
lation ; also in representing the gods as terrified by the 
flood and in the whole polytheistic setting of the story, 
and in the translation of the patriarch and his wife to 
dwell among the gods. 

This common relation of the Chaldean account to the 
Hebrew narrative as a whole testifies strongly to its 
unity, and to the arbitrary character of the partition 
made by the critics. 

See the translations of the flood tablets by George 
Smith, the discoverer of them, in his " Assyrian Discov- 
eries," 1875 ; " Chaldean Account of Genesis," 1876 ; 
" Records of the Past," vol. vii. ; also by Dr. Paul Haupt 
in Schrader's " Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament," 
and by Dr. John D. Davis in the Presbyterian Review 
for July, 1889, and in his Genesis and Semitic Tradition. 



NOAH AFTER THE FLOOD (CH. IX. 18-29) 127 



NOAH AFTER THE FLOOD (CH. LX. 18-29). 

The critics assign the concluding verses of this para- 
graph (vs. 28, 29) to P. They evidently refer back to 
the statement of Noah's age at the time of the flood (vii. 
6), and complete the record of Noah's life begun in v. 32 
in the exact terms of the preceding genealogy. They are 
thus linked at once with the narrative of the flood and 
with ch. v., and must be by the same author. We have, 
however, seen no evidence in these sections of a narrator 
P as distinguished from J, and none is suggested in the 
verses before us. It is at any rate a remarkable circum- 
stance, if Genesis is compiled from different documents, 
all of which must have mentioned the death of each of 
the patriarchs whose lives they recorded, that the fact of 
their death is invariably taken from P, and never from J, 
even when, as in the present instance, a J section imme- 
diately precedes. 

The opening verses of the paragraph (vs. 18, 19) are as- 
signed to J, who had previously spoken of the sons of 
Noah (vii. 7) as entering with him into the ark, but had 
not mentioned their names, while these have been be- 
fore stated by P (v. 32 ; vi. 10 ; vii. 13, and again in x. 1). 
But if the same writer could repeat their names four 
times, there is no very evident reason why he might not 
do so once more, or why the fifth repetition must neces- 
sarily imply a different writer. The critics tell us that 
vs. 18, 19 were in J introductory to the table of nations 
as given in that document, and were immediately fol- 
lowed by it, though, as they divide ch. x. , J only records 
the descendants of two sons of Noah, Ham and Shem, 
but none of Japheth ; and ver. 18b " Ham is the father 
of Canaan," plainly shows them to be preparatory to 
the narrative in vs. 20-27, a conclusion which can 



128 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH 

only be escaped by rejecting this clause as an interpola- 
tion. 

Yerse 20 is understood to trace the origin of the art of 
agriculture, and especially the culture of the vine, to 
Noah. It is hence conjectured that vs. 20-27 is a frag- 
ment from an ancient document, to which iv. 17-24 con- 
taining a record of the origin of other arts is likewise re- 
ferred, and from which J is supposed to have again 
drawn. While in the preceding narrative Noah's sons 
are spoken of as married, it is alleged that here they are 
represented as children and occupying the same tent with 
himself. But this is pure invention ; there is no such 
declaration or implication in anything that is said. Ham 
is here called Noah's youngest son (ver. 24) ; this is held 
to imply in J a different conception of their relative ages 
from that of P, who always names them in the order 
Shein, Ham, and Japheth. Bat they stand in the same 
order in ix. 18, which is attributed to J. If it be said 
that K has in this instance changed J's order to make it 
conform to that of P, the question arises why he did not 
likewise correct ver. 24 for the same reason. The fact is 
that the order of their names is not determined by their 
respective ages but by an entirely different reason. 
Shem as the ancestor of the chosen race is placed first, 
as Abram is for the like cause in xi. 26. Ham, as the an- 
cestor of nations standing in a nearer relation to the He- 
brews than the descendants of Japheth, comes next, 
and Japheth last. In ch. x. the order is precisely re- 
versed. The table of nations begins with those sprung 
from Japheth as the most remote ; Ham follows, then 
Shem, the series thus drawing gradually nearer to the 
chosen race, whose direct genealogy is reserved for xi. 
10 sqq. 

In ix. 20-27 an ancient prophecy from the mouth of 
Noah, in which the names of Shem, Japheth, and Canaan 



NOAH AFTER THE FLOOD (CH. IX. 18-29) 129 

appear, is recorded together with the circumstances 
under which it was delivered. 

Cursed be Canaan ; 

A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 

Blessed be Jehovah the God of Shem ; 

And let Canaan be his servant. 

God enlarge Japheth, 

And let him dwell in the tents of Shem ; 

And let Canaan be his servant. 

The critics think the circumstances improbable ; there- 
fore thej pronounce them untrue. Noah, they say, is 
here, ver. 20, a " husbandman, a role quite distinct from 
that of a navigator, " which he sustains elsewhere ; the 
remark seems to imply that he should have been culti- 
vating the soil during the flood, or should continue to 
sail about in the ark after the flood was over. The crit- 
ics can see no reason why sentence should have been 
pronounced upon Canaan for the shameful deed of his 
father ; therefore they conclude that there was no reason, 
and that it was not done. As though it were not the 
keenest of inflictions upon a father to be punished in his 
child ; and as though the law of heredity, the propaga- 
tion of character, and the perpetuation of the evil conse- 
quences of transgression generation after generation, were 
not among the most patent and familiar facts, of which 
the beastliness of the Canaanites and their merited doom 
afford a signal illustration. And now if they may change 
the text of the narrative on the pretext of conforming it 
to the prophecy, and so make Shem, Japheth, and Canaan 
the three sons of Noah, they can bring it into conflict 
with every other statement on the subject in the history ; 
whence they infer that this has been extracted from a 
document J', at variance with both J and P. Or if they 
may reverse the process and insert Ham instead of 
Canaan in the prophecy, they can show that it was not 
9 



130 THE GENERATIONS OP NOAH 

fulfilled. Or if they may put a belittling interpretation 
upon the prophecy, and restrict it to tribes inhabiting 
Palestine, Shem denoting Israel and Japheth the Philis- 
tines in contrast with the Canaanites, as is done by Well- 
hausen, they can show how the meaning can be perverted 
by giving arbitrary senses to words at variance with their 
well-known and invariable signification. By this time 
they have shown that something is absurd. They think 
that it is this venerable prophecy, whose profound and 
far-reaching meaning, whose appropriateness in a book 
intended for Israel about to enter on the conquest of 
Canaan, and whose exact fulfilment have been univer- 
sally recognized. Most persons will think that the ab- 
surdity is in the critical treatment of the passage. 

Delitzsch says, in his " Commentary " upon Gen. ix. 
18b, " And Ham is the father of Canaan : " " This clause 
is now mostly regarded as an addition by the redactor, 
since the conclusion is drawn from the curse upon 
Canaan that in the original form of the narrative it was 
Canaan who sinned against Noah (Dillmann and others). 
Some go farther and maintain that in its original shape the 
three sons of Noah were not Shem, Ham, and Japheth, 
but Shem, Japheth, and Canaan (Wellhausen). From 
this Budde, by means of critical operations, which tran- 
scend our horizon, obtains the result that the following 
narrative originally stood after xi. 9, and began, ' There 
went forth also from Babel Noah, the son of Jabal, he 
and his wife and his three sons, Shem, Japheth, and 
Canaan, and he came to Aram-naharaim and abode there.' 
So, as he supposes, wrote J', who, as Wellhausen and 
Kuenen also assume, knew nothing of a deluge. We 
here see a specimen of what emulation in the art of sev- 
ering can accomplish." 



IV 



THE GENEBATIONS OF THE SONS OF NOAH (CH. X. 1- 

XI. 9) 

OBIGIN OF NATIONS (CH. X.) 

The generations of the sons of Noah (ch. x. 1-xi. 9) 
record the dispersion of mankind over the earth ; and 
the generations of Shem (xi. 10-26) trace the line of de- 
scent to Abrarn. This completes the preliminary por- 
tion of the history of Genesis, inasmuch as it fills up the 
interval between the flood and the birth of Abrani, with 
whom the history of the chosen race properly begins. 
These sections are intimately related to one another, as 
well as closely connected both with what precedes and 
what follows. The genealogical table in ch. x. exhibits 
the filiation and relationship of the several nations of 
antiquity, and is intimately united with the antecedent 
history of Noah's family. Ch. x. 1 contains an explicit 
reference to the flood, the narrative of which had just 
been concluded, and proposes to state the descendants 
of the three sons of Noah, that were born to them after 
the flood. The way for it had been prepared by God's 
blessing Noah and his sons (ix. 1, 7), and bidding them 
multiply and replenish the earth ; as well as by the 
statement (ix. 19) that of the three sons of Noah was the 
whole earth overspread. Thus introduced, a detailed 
account is given of the particular nations sprung from 
them, which did thus overspread the earth (x. 32). Then 
follows (xi. 1-9) a narrative of the occurrences at Babel, 



132 THE GENERATIONS OF THE SONS OF NOAH 

which led to their being scattered over the earth, of 
which intimations had already been given (x. 10, 25). 

This table of the nations of mankind has its appro- 
priate place in the sacred history. It is inserted just 
here for a double reason : 1. To make a distinct declara- 
tion at the outset of their kinship to the chosen race, 
with which the history is henceforth more particularly to 
occupy itself. All are sprung from the same ancestry, 
and all are ultimately to share in the blessing to come 
upon all the families of mankind through the seed of 
Abraham (xii. 3). This conception of the universal 
brotherhood of man is peculiar to the Hebrew Script- 
ures, and is as remote as possible from that which was 
generally entertained by ancient nations, who looked 
upon foreigners as barbarians and enemies. 2. They 
are thus in accordance with the uniform plan of the 
book formally dismissed from the sacred history, which 
proceeds at once in accordance with the intimation given 
(ix. 26, 27) to devote itself to the consideration of the 
chosen seed by tracing the descent of Abram from Shem ; 
precisely as (iv. 17 sqq.) the descendants of Cain were 
recorded before leaving them to trace the line of descent 
through Seth (ch. v.), and as in the various instances 
that follow the divergent lines are first indicated before 
proceeding with the direct and principal line. 

The speciality with which the Canaanitish tribes are 
noted and their residences specified (x. 15-19) is also ob- 
servable, since this is intimately linked with the general 
purpose of the books of Moses, and with the occasion 
upon which they were written. 

Noldeke, in common, as he says, with the majority of 
critics, assigns ch. x. to P, with the exception of a few in- 
sertions by E, viz., vs. 8-11, relating to Nimrod and 
Asshur, ver. 21, and some words in vs. 19 and 25. Kay- 
ser gives the entire chapter to J, as is done likewise by 






ORIGIN OF NATIONS (CH. X.) 133 

Tuch, Hupfeld, and others, in imitation of Astruc and 
Eichhorn ; and claims that vs. 8-11 and 21 are properly 
connected as they stand. Movers * divides the chapter, 
giving vs. 8-19, 21, 24-30, to J, and the rest to P ; in 
this he is followed by Wellhansen (who gives ver. 24 and 
a clause in ver. 14 to E), Dillmann (who gives K, in ad- 
dition, ver. 9, and some words in ver. 19), and most re- 
cent critics. 2 

This partition is altogether arbitrary. It is princi- 
pally based upon a variation in the form of expression 
in different verses of the chapter. Those verses in which 
the line of descent is traced by the phrase " the sons 
of," are assigned to P ; the remaining verses, which use 
the word -jbj begat or b ^ ivere born to, are attributed to 
J. But— " T 

1. The genealogies assigned by the critics to P are not 
uniform in this particular ; thus while the P sections of this 
chapter have "the sons of," ch. v. and xi. 10-26 have 
Tbin begat; nor do the different parts of the same 
genealogy invariably preserve the same uniform style 
(Gen. xlvi., see ver. 20 ; Ex. vi. 14 sqq., see vs. 20, 23, 25). 
There is no propriety, therefore, in making the lack of 
absolute uniformity here the pretext for critical division. 

2. The same diversity of expressions as in ch. x. re- 
curs in other genealogies, which no critic thinks of par- 
celling between distinct sources on that account. Thus 
xxv. 1-4 is attributed to J, although ver. 3a has "fcj 
begat, and vs. 3b, 4, " the sons of." In xlvi. 8-27 " the 
sons of " and b 1^ ivere born to, occur not only in the 
same indivisible genealogy, but in the same verses (vs. 
22, 27). And were born to b *lhw 3 occurs in a P verse 

1 Zeitschrift fiir Philosopliie und Katholisehe Theologie, Heft 18, 
1836, p. 102. 

2 Schrader divides it between J and E. 

3 The Niphal future of this verb corresponds to the Pual preterite. 
Conip. iv. 18, 26 ; xlvi. 20, 27; 2 Sam. iii. 2, 5. 



134 THE GENERATIONS OF THE SONS OF NOAH 

in the genealogy before us (x. 1). The attempt has been 
made to evade this by dividing the verse and assigning 
ver. la to P, and ver. lb to J. But Dillmann says of 
this arbitrary sundering of the sentence : " No reason 
can be seen why ver. lb should be not from P, but a 
continuation of ix. 18a J." 

3. The proposed partition of this chapter is impracti- 
cable for a double reason. (1) The incompleteness of 
the portion ascribed to J, and (2) the mutual depend- 
ence of what is respectively given to J and to P. The 
critics are compelled to give J a share in this chapter, 
both in order to justify the intimation given in that doc- 
ument (ix. 18, 19), " of the three sons of Noah was the 
whole earth overspread," and to find something by which 
to bridge the chasm from Noah to Abram, who when first 
introduced in J (xi. 29), is spoken of as though he were 
already known. And yet the portion attributed to J 
fails to meet the requirements of the case, since it does 
not fulfil the expectations legitimately created in either 
of these respects. As a statement of the descendants of 
Noah, it begins abruptly, and is fragmentary in its charac- 
ter. Kautzsch imagines that ix. 18, 19 lias been trans- 
posed by the redactor, and that it originally stood at the 
head of the genealogical table in J, and was connected 
with x. lb. This groundless conjecture is an attempt to 
supply an appropriate beginning to J which is mani- 
festly lacking. Moreover, it contains no mention of the 
descendants of Japheth, which must have been included 
in any conspectus of those who were sprung from the 
sons of Noah ; see also x. 21 J. And further, there is no 
introductory statement connecting the descendants of 
Ham, vs. 8 sqq., with Ham himself. These gaps are all 
created by the partition, and result from sundering what 
belongs together. What is thus obviously missing in J 
lies before us in what the critics have arbitrarily sepa- 



ORIGIN OF NATIONS (CH. X.) 135 

rated from it and given to P. And what has been given 
to J is needed to make up the deficiencies thus created 
in P. P tells us of Mizraim and Canaan, sons of Ham, 
but we must look to J for the names of their descend- 
ants. Evidently these belong together. 

It is claimed that what is missing from J's account 
may have been contained in that document originally 
and omitted by R, because already stated with sufficient 
fulness in the extracts taken from P. It is easy to spec- 
ulate on what might have been. But the fact is that 
the gaps in J are adequately supplied in the text as it 
stands at present. The assumption that another parallel 
account of the very same things ever existed as a part of 
the document J is based on the prior assumption of the 
sejDarate existence of that document as a complete and 
independent production. An inference from a hypothe- 
sis lends no support to that hypothesis, but depends 
upon it, and is only valid after the hypothesis has first 
been established. 

On the ground of the correspondence between ver. 25 
and xi. 16, Wellhausen claims that the former bears wit- 
ness to the existence of a genealogy in J parallel to xi. 
10-26, which traces the descent of Abram from Shem. 
This is coupled with the assertion that x. 24 is an inser- 
tion by R with the view of harmonizing J's account with 
that of P (xi. 10-14) ; and that the line from Shem to 
Abram in J, embraced but seven names (Arpachshad, 
Shelah, and probably Nahor, 1 the father of Terah, being- 
omitted) as against ten in P (comp. the six names from 
Adam to Lamech in iv. 17, 18 J, and the nine in ch. v. 
P, with one to be added to each series for Noah, as Well- 
hausen conjectures). But this is baseless speculation in 
all its parts. For x. 24 is indispensable in its place, and 
cannot have been interpolated by R. In x. 21, Shem is 
1 So Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 330. 



136 THE GENERATIONS OF THE SONS OF NOAH 

called " the father of all the children of Eber," i.e., the 
Hebrews as well as other tribes and nations sprung from 
the same stock, vs. 26-29. But the links of descent from 
Shem to Eber are first given in ver. 24. Bndde J proposes 
to remove this difficulty by altering the text of x. 21 to 
" Shem the father of Eber," as the only expedient by which 
it can be made " a serviceable link in a J genealogy." The 
need of so violent a remedy exposes the falsity of the as- 
sumption which requires it. Ver. 24 is a necessary con- 
stituent of the text, and cannot have been a later addition 
to it. And then the dependence of vs. 24, 25 upon ver. 22, 
and their substantial identity with xi. 10-16, forbid the 
notion of their being independent genealogies extracted 
from distinct sources. The abbreviated form of the for- 
mer, and the use of ib*i instead of Tbin begat, are not sug- 
gestive of diversity of authorship, but ordinary charac- 
teristics of the side lines in distinction from the direct 
genealogy of the chosen race. Moreover, x. 25 is not a 
relic of what was originally a complete genealogy from 
Shem to Abram, the remainder having been omitted by 
R as a needless parallel to that in ch. xi. It belongs in 
the line of descent of the tribes named in vs. 26-29, 
which diverged from that of the chosen race with the 
birth of Peleg, so named because " in his days was the 
earth divided." Mention is here made of Peleg with al- 
lusion to the narrative of the dispersion of the nations, 
which is to follow in the next chapter, and as a link of 
connection binding the two chapters together. 

Nor can ver. 21 be sundered from ver. 22 and assigned 
to a distinct document. The absence of the conjunction 
"1 and, from the beginning of ver. 22 shows that it stands 
in the same relation to ver. 21 as ver. 2 to ver. 1 ; while 
the 1 and, of ver. 21 links the paragraph containing the 
descendants of Shem to the preceding, as in ver. 6 the 

1 Urgeschichte, p. 221, note. 






ORIGIN OF NATIONS (CH. X.) 137 

descendants of Ham. Driver appeals to fctflri n^ to him 
also, as iv. 22, 26 ; xix. 38 ; xxii. 20, 24, and the father of, 
as characteristics of J. But the father of occurs also in 
a P genealogy (xxxvi. 9, 43 P, as iv. 20, 21 ; xix. 37, 38 ; 
xxii. 21 J) ; and though there does not chance to have 
been any occasion for connecting n^ with X1H in a P sec- 
tion, it occurs with other pronouns, e.g., Ex. vii. 11 ; 
Lev. xxvi. 24 ; Num. xviii. 28. 

Nor is there any good reason for regarding vs. 8-12 as 
a later addition to this chapter, 1 or as unsuited because 
of its individual character to a place in this table of na- 
tions. If this were so, it would be a bar to the proposed 
critical partition, for it would be as foreign to that por- 
tion of the chapter which is imputed to J, as to that of 
P. It is introduced in order to connect the Babel to be 
spoken of in the next chapter with a descendant of Cush ; 
but there is no need on this account of assuming with 
Dillmann that it should properly follow xi. 1-9. It is 
agreeable to the usage of the author of the Pentateuch 
to insert in genealogical tables allusions to persons or 
events of note, especially those that have been mentioned 
previously or are to figure afterwards, e.g., v. 29 ; x. 25 ; 
xxii. 23 ; xxxvi. 6-8, 24 ; xlvi. 12 ; Ex. vi. 20, 23, 25 ; 
Num. xxvi. 9-11, 33. 

It is further urged in proof of the blending of separate 
sources that diverse origins are attributed to the same 
people ; thus Havilah and Sheba according to ver. 7 (P) 
are descended from Cush the son of Ham, but according 
to vs. 28, 29 (J) from Joktan in the line of Shem ; ac- 
cording to ver. 22 (P) Lud sprang from Shem, but ac- 
cording to ver. 13 (J) from Mizraim the son of Ham ; 

1 Dillmann urges that Mmrod is not named in ver. 7 among the sons 
of Cush ; but they are nations, while he is an individual, and is a son 
not in the sense of an immediate descendant, hut as Jesus was a son of 
David, and David a son of Abraham (Matt. i. 1). 



138 THE GENEKATIONS OF THE SONS OF NOAH 

Aram is said to be descended from Shem, and Uz from 
Aram, vs. 22, 23 (P), but, xxii. 21 (J) Uz and Aram are 
traced to Nahor, the brother of Abraham, and, xxxvi. 28 
(R), Uz is included among the descendants of Seir ; Dedan, 
ver. 7, is included among the descendants of Cush the 
son of Ham, but, xxv. 3, among those of Abraham by 
Keturah. It is claimed that these variant representa- 
tions must have proceeded from different writers. This 
is, however, by no means a necessary inference. For — 

(1) The critics themselves do not adhere to this rule ; 
Sheba (x. 28) was descended from Joktan, but (xxv. 3) 
from Abraham by Keturah, yet the critics refer both 
these passages to J. 

(2) The apparent difficulty admits of a ready solution 
in one or other of two ways. The same name may have 
been borne by distinct peoples. Thus Asshur (x. 22) was 
descended from Shem ; and yet Asshurim are mentioned 
(xxv. 3) among those that sprang from Abraham by 
Keturah. Here it is obviously incredible that the author 
could have meant to identify this obscure tribe with the 
great Assyrian nation, and to represent the latter as de- 
scended from Abraham. Dillmann acknowledges that 
the Ludim (x. 13), who are not only here but by the 
prophets (Jer. xlvi. 9 ; Ezek. xxvii. 10 ; xxx. 5) associ- 
ated with the Egyptians and other African peoples, are 
quite distinct from Lud (x. 22), the Lydians of Asia 
Minor. These are not to be confounded any more than 
the Trojans of ancient times with their modern name- 
sakes in the State of New York, or the Indians of Amer- 
ica with those of southeastern Asia. 

(3) Or tribes may be of mixed origin, and so are 
properly traceable to different lines of descent. Thus 
Dillmann 1 says of Sheba : " It is a matter of course that 
a people with such an extended trade had stations and 

1 Genesis, 5th edition, p. 182. 



ORIGIN OF NATIONS (CH. X.) 139 

connections everywhere, on the sea and on caravan 
routes, and came to be mingled with their associates, so 
that the j could be variously connected genealogically." 
And Delitzsch, commenting on x. 7, says to the same 
purport of Sheba and Dedan : " Arab tribes of Semitic 
origin are so called in ver. 28 ; xxv. 3 ; but there is no 
reason for denying an older Cushite stock in each of 
these Arab trading peoples." In like manner, in expla- 
nation of the double origin of Havilah, he says : " It is 
an acknowledged fact that migrations of Cushites and 
Arabs took place to and fro across the Arabian Gulf." 

The mention of the same name in different lines of de- 
scent accordingly involves no discrepancy in the cases 
named, and no diversity of writers. If different tribes 
bearing the same name are of diverse origin, or if the 
same tribe is partly of one race and partly of another, 
one writer surely could tell the tale as well as two. 

This table of the generations of the sons of Noah con- 
tains just 70 names, not reckoning Nimrod (ver. 8), 
which is the name of a person, viz.: 14 descendants of Ja- 
pheth + 30 of Ham + 26 of Shem = 70. This was also 
the number of Jacob's family when they went down into 
Egypt (Gen. xlvi. 27 ; Ex. i. 5 ; Dent. x. 22), a number 
perpetuated in the permanent constitution of Israel with 
its 57 families 1 + 13 tribes, as well as in the representa- 
tive body of seventy elders (Ex. xxiv. 1, 9 ; Num. xi. 16, 
24, 25). The families of Israel are thus set in numerical 
relation to the families of mankind, which are to be 
blessed through their instrumentality (Gen. xii. 3). This 
correspondence seems to be intimated in Deut. xxxii. 8 : 
" When the Most High gave to the nations their inheri- 
tance, when he separated the children of men, he set the 
bounds of the peoples according to the number of the 
children of Israel." It is frequently remarked upon by 
1 Num. xxvi. , not reckoning' the Levitical families. 



140 THE GENERATIONS OF THE SONS OF NOAH 

the rabbins, as in the following passage from the book of 
Zohar : 1 " Seventy souls went down with Jacob into 
Egypt, that they might restore the seventy families dis- 
persed by the confusion of tongues." It is scarcely sup- 
posable that the seventy names in Gen. x. can be for- 
tuitous. 2 And if it was intentional, the unity of the 
chapter is a necessary conclusion ; for it is only in the 
chapter as a whole, not in its severed portions, that 
the number 70 appears. This further excludes the ar- 
bitrary conjectures, which have nothing whatever to 
recommend them, that the clause, " whence went forth 
the Philistines " (ver. 14), and the names of the Canaan- 
itish tribes (vs. 16-18a, so Wellhausen, Kautzsch), are 
later additions to the text. 

The high antiquity of this table is attested by the fact 
that several names familiar in later times find no place 
in it. Thus, while Sidon is mentioned (vs. 15, 19), there 
is no allusion to Tyre, which by the time of David had 
already outstripped it ; nor do such names occur as 
Arabians (Isa. xxi. 13), or Minni (Jer. li. 27), or Persians. 
The tribes of Moab, Ammon, Ishmael, Edom, Amalek, as 
well as those sprung from Keturah and from Nahor, are 

1 Quoted by Lightfoot, Heb. Exercit. on Luke iii. 36. 

2 Fiirst (Gescliiclite der biblischen Literatur, i., p. 7) and Noldeke 
(Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments, p. 17) call attention 
to the fact that the descendants of Terah's three sons — Abraham, Nahor, 
and Haran — likewise amount to 70. From Abraham the 12 tribes of 
Israel; 16 of Edom (Gen. xxxvi.), viz., 5 sons (vs. 4, 5) + 11 grandsons 
(vs. 15-17) ; 12 of Ishmael (Gen. xvii. 20 ; xxv. 13-16) ; 16 of Keturah 
(Gen. xxv. 1-4) ; from Nahor, 12 (Gen. xxii. 20-24) ; from Haran, the 
2 sons of Lot (Gen. xix 36-38). Total, 12 + 16 + 12 + 16 + 12 + 2 = 
70. Such a repetition of this number, which, even where it is not ob- 
vious upon the surface, yet underlies the entire scheme of the geneal- 
ogies of this book, adds its evidence to the significance attached to it 
by the writer ; and it supplies a fresh link to bind together in unity its 
component parts, and to show that they have all proceeded from the 
same hand, and that they cannot be distributed between P, J, and It, 
as is done by the critics. 



OKIGIN" OF NATIONS (CH. X.) 141 

not included in this table, because their descent is to be 
stated subsequently. The genealogies of Genesis thus 
complete one another, and thereby evidence themselves 
to constitute together one general scheme, and to be 
from the same hand and not referable to distinct sources, 
as the critics affirm. Aboriginal races, like the Eniim, 
Anakim, Eephaim, Horim, Zamzummim, and Avim 
(Deut. ii), which had almost or quite disappeared in the 
time of Moses, are of course omitted. 

The strange conceit of Wellhausen, and adopted from 
him by Buclde, Stade, and E. Meyer, that the three sons 
of Xoah primarily denoted three different populations 
which tenanted Palestine — Israel, the Canaanites, and the 
Philistines — and only at a later time came to be regarded 
as the progenitors of all mankind, is very justly and em- 
phatically set aside by Dillmann as "so utterly devoid 
of any foundation in fact that it is not worth while to 
enter upon it." 

MARKS OF P. 

The linguistic marks of P in ch. x., according to Dill- 
mann are : 

1. The title " these are the generations ; " but this is 
not restricted to P sections. 

2. " The concluding formula, vs. 5, 20, 31, 32 ; " but the 
J genealogy (xxv. 4) has one likewise. 

3. " Its verbosity," which simply emphasizes four par- 
ticulars in order to indicate that this is a genealogy 
not of individual men, but of nation*, with their families 
or tribal divisions, speaking various tongues and occupy- 
ing different countries, and there are numerous passages 
attributed to J in which particulars are similarly enu- 
merated in detail, e.g., vii. 7, 23 ; xv. 19-21, where this ad- 
mission is only escaped by assuming interpolations by 



142 THE GENERATIONS OF THE SONS OF NOAH 

R, xii. 16 ; xxvi. 13, 14 ; xxx. 32-35, 39, 43 ; xxxii. 6, 8 
(A. Y. ys. 5, 7). 

4. " Dmnsmb after their families" this word occurs 
eighty times in the Hexateuch, and in a slightly altered 
orthography DPPrfiHfilBiab, twice more ; and it is in every 
instance referred to P. This sounds like a very sig- 
nificant statement ; but as soon as the facts in the case 
are examined it appears that it has no bearing what- 
ever upon the question of a diversity of documents. 
With one single exception it is exclusively found in 
connection with the genealogies of nations or tribes 
(Gen. x. 5, 20, 31 ; xxxvi. 40 ; Ex. vi. 17, 25), or the cen- 
sus of the tribes of Israel (Num. i., iii., iv., xxvi.), or the 
distribution of the promised land among the several 
tribes (Josh, xiii., xv.-xix., xxi.). And the great body of all 
such material is given to P. Its occurrence, therefore, 
is directly traceable to the subject-matter, not to the pe- 
culiarity of a particular writer. The one exception is 
Gen. viii. 18, where the various species of animals that 
came forth from the ark are figuratively denominated 
"families." The same form of the word, with the same 
preposition, in an identical meaning, occurs likewise in J, 
only with a different suffix ; DD^nnSEJttb Ex. xii. 21 ; 
"pnnBTOb Num. xi. 10 ; or with the article instead, 
mnSTOb Josh. vii. 14. Apart from genealogies, the 
census and the apportionment of the land, or laws relat- 
ing to it, as Num. xxvii. 1-11 ; xxxvi., and Lev. xxv. (the 
return to family possessions in the jubilee), the word 
?\nt)W is exclusively found in J, Gen. xii. 3 ; xxviii. 14 ; 
xxiv. 38, 40, 41 ; Lev. xx. 5 (J according to Dillmann) ; 
Josh. vi. 23 ; vii. 14, 17. 

5. " The prep. 2 in vs. 5. 20, 32," which is certainly 
a very slender string to hang an argument for diversity 
of authorship upon. See ch. vi.-ix. Marks of P, No. 
28. 



TOWER OF BABEL (CH. XI. 1-9) 143 



MAKES OF J. 

The marks of J, besides those already explained, are : 

1. " 1223 (ver. 18 as ix. 19) instead of ninsa P (x. 5, 
32) ; " but, as Dillmann on ix. 19 admits, the words are 
not used in precisely the same sense. The former means 
to be dispersed or spread abroad ; the latter to be divided, 
suggesting the idea of distinctness or separation. More- 
over, the word, which is here represented to belong to P, 
in distinction from J, elsewhere is found almost exclu- 
sively in J, viz. : Gen. ii. 10 ; xiii. 9, 14 ; xxv. 23 ; xxx. 
40 ; Deut. xxxii. 8 ; and but once in P (Gen. xiii. 11), 
where it is cut out of a J connection by a critical ma- 
noeuvre. 

2. " HDKi as thou comest (used as an adverb) " (vs. 19 
bis, 30) ; this occurs but twice elsewhere (xiii. 10 J, and 
xxv. 18, which the critics regard as a gloss). Such cri- 
teria are of no account. 



TOWER OF BABEL (CH. XI. 1-9). 

It is alleged that xi. 1-9 cannot be from the same 
author as ch. x., because they represent quite different 
conceptions of the cause which led to the dispersion of 
mankind over the earth ; one traces it to the simple mul- 
tiplication of the race, the other to an immediate divine 
intervention. Hence Noldeke assigns ch. x. to P and 
xi. 1-9 to J ; Wellhausen, who finds both P and J in ch. 
x., attributes xi. 1-9 to J', supposed to be an earlier 
stratum in the document J. But the explicit allusions 
to Babel and to the dispersion which took place there, in 
x. 10, 25, shows that this transaction was before the mind 
of the writer of ch. x. And there is not the slightest in- 
consistency between the two passages. The writer sim- 



144 THE GENERATIONS OF THE SONS OF NOAH 

ply proceeds in ch. xi. to detail in its proper place an 
additional fact connected with the peopling of the earth. 

It is further urged that there is in xi. 1-9 no mention 
of Noah's three sons and their descendants as in ch. x., 
but simply of the population of the earth as a unit. To 
which Dillmann very properly replies : " The sons, grand- 
sons, etc., of Noah can very well be regarded as in the 
first instance united in one place and forming the entire 
population of the earth, until God constrained them to 
disperse." He also enters a caveat against a misconcep- 
tion of the real meaning of what is here narrated : " The 
author does not say that the manifold languages of men 
now came into existence ready made on the instant ; he 
only fixes a point of time at which the divergence of na- 
tions and languages began. Still less is he responsible 
for the conceit of the later Jews and of the church fathers, 
that Hebrew was the original language from which the 
others branched off in consequence of this confusion." 

Jehovah is the only divine name that occurs in this 
section, and it is in each instance appropriately used. 
The builders at Babel are frustrated in their ambitious 
design by Jehovah (xi. 5, 6, 8, 9), in the interest of his 
purpose of mercy to the world. The massing of the 
race together and concentrating them in what must have 
become one vast ungodly power was thwarted by scatter- 
ing them over the earth. In x. 9 Nimrod is twice spoken 
of as " a mighty hunter before Jehovah " (comp. vi. 11). 
Both the character of the chapter in general, and the con- 
nection of this verse with that which precedes and fol- 
lows, show that Nimrod is here described not as a hunter 
of wild beasts, but as a conqueror and oppressor of men, 1 
and the founder of a great empire. And Jehovah is ob- 

1 Dillmann refuses to admit this sense, so obviously demanded by tbe 
context, to be the one originally intended, and is obliged in consequence 
to regard ver. 9 as an interpolation. 



TOWER OF BABEL (CH. XI. 1-9) 145 

servant of all his schemes of conquest, ready to limit and 
control them in the interest of that divine kingdom 
which it is his purpose to introduce among men. 



MARKS OF J. 

1. " MSB Up (vs. 1, 6, 7, 9), instead of ywb tongue (x. 5, 
20, 31)." But while "lip" may be used for "a lan- 
guage " in the singular, the plural is always expressed 
by "tongues." Thus Isa. xix. 18, "the lip or language 
of Canaan," but Isa. lxvi. 18, " all nations and tongues ; " 
Zech. viii. 23, " all tongues of the nations," but Zeph. 
iii. 9, " a pure lip or language." Moreover, if the same 
writer can use both " lip " and " tongue " in this sense 
in the same sentence, as Isa. xxviii. 11 ; xxxiii. 19 ; 
Ezek. iii. 5, 6, why not on successive pages ? 

2. " Jehovah comes down from heaven " (vs. 5, 7) ; 
but in xvii. 22 ; xxxv. 13, passages attributed to P, it is 
said that God went up after speaking with Abraham and 
with Jacob, which implies a previous descent. 

3. "The etymology " (ver. 9). But allusions to the sig- 
nificance of names are likewise found in P (Gen. xvii. 5, 
17, 19, 20). It should further be observed here that the 
sacred writer is not to be understood as giving the real 
derivation of the word Babel, but simply as noting the 
very significant sense suggested by it to a Hebrew ear. 
It was an instance of a nomen et omen. Cf. John ix. 7, 
where no one imagines the evangelist's meaning to be 
that the pool of Siloam derived its name from the cir- 
cumstance which he relates. 



THE GENERATIONS OF SHEM (CH. XI. 10-26) 
SHEM TO ABEAM (CH. XI. 10-26) 

The table of descent from Shem to Abram is evi- 
dently constructed upon a uniform plan with that in 
ch. v. from Adam to Noah, giving not a bare list of 
names as in ch. x. and in the side lines generally, but 
stating the age of the father at the birth of the son 
through whom the line is continued ; then the length of 
his life after the birth of his son, with the mention of his 
begetting sons and daughters ; and after running through 
nearly the same number of links (one ten, the other 
nine), they alike terminate with a father who has three 
sons, that are all named together without indicating the 
intervals between their birth. The only difference in 
their structure is that ch. v. sums up the years of the 
life of each patriarch, while ch. xi. does not. A close 
connection is thus established between the genealogy in 
ch. v. and that in ch. xi., showing that xi. 10-26 could 
not have constituted a genealogical fragment by itself. 

It is manifestly the continuation of the genealogy in ch. 
v., and yet it could not have been joined directly to it 
without the sections which now intervene ; as though 
what was once a continuous genealogy had been sun- 
dered, and chs. vi.-xi. 9 inserted between the severed 
parts. The last verse of ch. v. does not complete the 
statements about Noah in the regular form consistently 
pursued throughout the genealogy, so that the next term 



SHEM TO ABEAM (CH. XT. 10-26) 147 

in the genealogy might be expected immediately to follow. 
It both states more and less than had been regularly 
stated in each of the preceding terms. More, in that it 
mentions three sons instead of one, leading us to expect 
that something is to be said about all three ; this is a 
preparation, therefore, for the narrative of the flood, 
with which they are concerned, and also for the table of 
the descendants of each given in ch. x. This verse also 
states less than was customary in all preceding cases ; 
for while it gives the age of Noah at the birth of his 
sons, it does not state how long he lived subsequently, 
nor the entire length of his life. These missing state- 
ments are found in what follows by combining vii. 6, 11, 
with ix. 28, 29. Ch. xi. 10 also implies the preceding 
narrative of the flood ; and vs. 10-26 completes the ac- 
count of the descendants of Shem, which x. 21-31 (see 
particularly ver. 25) only gives in part. At xi. 26 the 
genealogy is again enlarged in the same way to intro- 
duce the history that follows. 



VI 

THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH (CH. XI. 27-XXV. 11) 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS 

The sixth section, which extends from the birth to the 
death of Abraham, is called the Generations of Terah, 
and begins with a restatement of his three sons, precisely 
as the fourth section is entitled the " Generations of 
Noah," and begins with a restatement of his three sons. 
As this latter section describes the fortunes of Noah, 
Shem, Ham, and Japheth, so that now before us is occu- 
pied with what is to be told respecting Terah, Abram, 
Nahor, and Haran. The life of Abram, who is the prin- 
cipal figure in this portion of the sacred narrative, was 
for some time united with that of Lot, the son of Haran, 
and Abram's son Isaac married Rebekah, the grand- 
daughter of Nahor. 

The call of Abraham (xii. 1) is related to the promise 
to Shem (ix. 26), as its initial fulfilment. In Abraham's 
life all revolves about the promised land and the prom- 
ised seed. He is to go to a land that the Lord will 
show him, and become the father of a great people, and 
all the families of the earth shall be blessed in him. As 
soon as he arrives in Canaan, the Lord tells him that 
this is the land and that his seed shall possess it. Both 
of these particulars are further defined and confirmed in 
what follows. He has scarcely arrived in Canaan before 
he is obliged to leave it in consequence of a famine (xii. 
10 sqq.), and go to Egypt. This is a trial of his faith 



PRELIMINARY REMARKS 149 

in the future possession of the land. Then follows the 
risk of losing Sarah, which was a trial of his faith in the 
promised seed. The peril is averted by divine interfer- 
ence, and enriched he returns with Lot to the land of 
promise. Lot separates from him (xiii. 5 sqq.), though 
without leaving Canaan, when a more definite promise 
is made of giving all the land to Abram and his seed 
(vs. 14, 15). The land is invaded, and Lot taken captive ; 
Abram pursues and chastises the invaders, rescues his 
nephew, and is blessed by Melchizedek, king of Salem 
and priest of the Most High God (ch. xiv.). 

Meanwhile Sarah has no son, and the prospect is that 
Eliezer will be Abram's heir (xv. 2 seq.). But he is as- 
sured that it is not merely one born in his house, but 
a son of his own body who shall be his heir, and whose 
posterity shall be as numerous as the stars of heaven, 
(vs. 4-6). A prospect of the future of his seed is shown 
him. And the Lord by a visible token ratifies a cove- 
nant with Abram to give his seed the land, and definitely 
designates its dimensions (vs. 7-21). The promise of the 
land has now reached its utmost solemnity and precision. 
Years pass on, and Sarah abandons all hope of having 
children, and gives her maid to her husband ; she bears 
him Ishmael (ch. xvi.). At length, twenty-four years 
after Abram's arrival in Canaan, the Lord appears to 
him again as the Almighty God, and engages that Sarah, 
notwithstanding her advanced age, should have a son the 
very next year, and that her child, and not Ishmael, should 
be the promised seed. In view of this he was on his part 
to enter into covenant with God by the rite of circumci- 
sion, as God had already formally entered into cove- 
nant with him (ch. xvii.). Both the contracting parties 
having thus sealed the engagement, it is finally con- 
cluded by a meal, of which the Lord partakes in human 
form in the tent of Abraham. And the confidential in- 



150 THE GENERATION'S OF TERAH 

timacy to which the latter is admitted is further shown 
by the communication to him of the divine purpose re- 
specting Sodom (ch. xviii.). Then follows (ch. xix.) the 
destruction of Sodom and Lot's deliverance, and the 
parentage of Moab and Ammon, tribes related to Israel 
and in their vicinity during the forty years' wandering, 
respecting which there were special requirements in the 
law presupposing this genealogical statement (Deut. ii. 
9, 19) ; so that the history of Lot is preliminary to these 
injunctions. At the court of Abimelech Sarah is once 
more imperilled, and is divinely delivered (ch. xx.). Isaac 
is born ; Ishmael must give way to him, and goes with 
his mother to the wilderness of Paran (xxi. 1-21). God's 
blessing upon Abraham is recognized by Abimelech, who 
solicits his friendship (xxi. 22 sqq.). 

Then comes Abraham's last and sorest trial in respect 
to his son. He is bidden to offer him up to God on the 
altar (ch. xxii.). In the act of obedience his hand is 
stayed, Isaac is restored to him, and all the promises 
previously made to him are repeated in their fullest 
form, and confirmed by the new solemnity of an oath. 
The period of trial is now over. The successful endur- 
ance of this severest test of his faith marks the culmina- 
tion of Abraham's life, which henceforth flows peacefully 
and quietly to its close. The account of Nahor's family 
(vs. 20-24) paves the way for the subsequent narrative 
of Isaac's marriage. We then read of Sarah's death, and 
of the formalities connected with the purchase of a bur- 
ial-place (ch. xxiii.), the first possession in the promised 
land, where Sarah and Abraham were to lie, thus even in 
death attesting their faith in this sure inheritance. Then 
Rebekah is brought to be the wife of Isaac (ch. xxiv.). 
This is followed by the marriage of Keturah, and the 
names of her sons ; and finally Abraham's death and 
burial (xxv. 1-11). 



THE DIVINE NAMES 151 



THE DIVINE NAMES. 



Throughout this section the divine names are used 
with evident discrimination. The name Jehovah is used 
in ch. xii.-xvi. ; Elohim does not occur until ch. xvii., 
where it is found repeatedly, and, with the exception of 
ver. 1, exclusively. It is Jehovah the God of the chosen 
race who bids Abram leave his kindred and his father's 
house (xii. 1-4), with the promise to multiply his seed 
and to give him Canaan (xii. 2, 7 ; xiii. 14-17) ; to whom 
Abram erected altars in this land and paid his worship 
(xii. 7, 8 ; xiii. 4, 18) ; who guarded Sarah, Abram's wife 
(xii. 17) ; who noted and would punish the guilty occu- 
pants of the promised land (xiii. 10, 13 ; xv. 16) ; to 
whom Abram appealed as the universal sovereign (xiv. 
22), while to Melchizedek he was not Jehovah but El 
Elyon, God most High (vs. 18-20) ; who appeared to 
Abram (xii. 7), spake to him (xii. 1, 4, 7 ; xiii. 14 ; ch. 
xv.), and covenanted with him (xv. 18) ; whom Sarah 
recognized as directing all that affected her (xvi. 2, 5) ; 
who cared for Hagar as a member of Abram's family 
(xvi. 7 sqq.), though in the mouth of this Egyptian maid 
(xvi. 13), as well as in the name of her son (xvi. 11, 15), 
we find not Jehovah but El. 

It may be asked, why is it not still Jehovah, the God 
of the chosen race, who in ch. xvii. enters into covenant 
with Abraham and establishes circumcision as the seal of 
that covenant and the perpetual badge of the covenant 
people ? It is Jehovah who appears to Abram and 
forms this solemn engagement with him, as is expressly 
declared, ver. 1. In doing so he announces himself as 
the Almighty God, and the reason for this is obvious. 
The promise of a numerous seed made to Abram at the 
outset had been repeated from time to time for four and 



152 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

twenty long years, and there had been as yet no indica- 
tion of its fulfilment. Meanwhile in his advancing age 
and that of Sarah all natural hope of offspring had van- 
ished. The time has now come when his persistent faith 
shall be rewarded. Nature has failed, but the divine 
omnipotence is all-sufficient. Isaac shall be born the 
next year. The emphasis here laid on God's almighty 
power, is indicated by El Shaddai, God Almighty (ver. 
1), followed by Elohim, the title of the God of creation, 
throughout the interview and to the end of the chapter. 

It is Jehovah again in ch. xviii. who in condescending 
grace concludes the covenant transaction with Abram by 
becoming his guest, and in the familiarity of friendship 
admits him to his counsel respecting Sodom and accepts 
his intercession on its behalf ; and who still further (xix. 
1-28) executes the purpose which he had disclosed to 
Abraham, of purging his own land of gross offenders 
(cf. xiii. 13 ; xv. 16 ; xviii. 20, 21). Here the critics claim 
that xix. 29 is a fresh account of the destruction of Sodom 
and the rescue of Lot, which instead of relating in detail, 
as in the previous part of the chapter, despatches all in 
a single sentence, using Elohim of the very same matter 
in regard to which Jehovah had been before employed 
throughout. But — 

1. This verse, instead of relating the overthrow of 
Sodom, presupposes this event as known and already 
narrated, and proceeds to declare what took place when 
it occurred. The direct course of the narrative had been 
interrupted (vs. 27, 28) to mention Abraham's early 
visit to the scene of his former intercession, and what he 
there beheld. Then in returning to his narrative the 
writer sums up in a single sentence what he had already 
related, and proceeds to say what further became of Lot. 1 

1 Thus Gen. ii. 1 recapitulates the work of the six days (ch. i.), in 
order to connect with it the rest of the seventh day (ii. 2, 3) ; xxxix. 1, 



THE DIVINE NAMES 153 

2. The reason for the change in the divine name is 
now apparent. In the paragraph which begins with this 
verse and extends to the end of the chapter, the writer is 
speaking of Lot, now and henceforth completely severed 
from Abraham, and removed beyond the boundaries of 
the promised land, the ancestor of Moab and Ammon, to 
whom God is not Jehovah but Elohim, as to all outside 
of the chosen race. 

In like manner in the affair of Abimelech, king of Ge- 
rar, a Gentile prince (ch. xx.), Elohim is the proper word, 
and is accordingly used throughout, both in God's deal- 
ings with Abimelech (vs. 3, 6, 17), and in what Abraham 
says to him (vs. 11, 13). Only in ver. 18, where the 
writer introduces a statement of his own that the inflic- 
tion there spoken of was for the protection of Abraham 's 
wife, Jehovah is introduced precisely as in the similar 
case, xii. 17. 

The birth of Isaac recalled alike the pledge of al- 
mighty intervention and the gracious promise of Abra- 
ham's God; hence the use of Jehovah in xxi. 1, with 
special reference to xviii. 10, 14, and of Elohim in vs. 2, 
4, 6, 1 with reference to xvii. 10, 19, 21. In the narrative 
of the dismissal of Hagar and Ishmael (vs. 9-21) Elohim 
is used throughout, because they are now finally severed 
from the family of Abraham ; whereas in xvi. 7-13, while 
Hagar still belonged to his family, it is the angel of Jeho- 
vah who finds her in the wilderness, and sends her back to 
her mistress. In Abimelech's visit to Abraham he nat- 

after the digression of ch. xxxviii., sums up the narrative of xxxvii. 
28-36, on returning to the history of Joseph ; so Ex. vi. 28-30, for a like 
reason, repeats vs. 10-12 ; Ex. xii. 51 repeats ver. 41 ; Judg. iii. 4, cf. 
ver. 1 ; xxi. 8, cf. ver. 5 ; 1 Kin. vi. 37, cf. ver. 1. 

1 Cf. with ver. 6 in its allusion to God's almighty intervention in con- 
trast with natural causes, Eve's language at the birth of Seth (iv. 25), 
with Elohim in what the critics consider a J section because of the im- 
plied contrast between God and man. 



154 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

urally speaks of Elohim (xxi. 22, 23), whereas in Abra- 
ham's act of worship he calls on the name of Jehovah 
(ver. 33). In ch. xxii. it is Elohim who puts Abraham to 
trial by the command to offer up Isaac ; it is Jehovah 
who stays his hand. God the creator has the undoubted 
right to demand of his creature the dearest and the best ; 
but the God of Abraham, the God of revelation and sal- 
vation accepts the spiritual surrender and spares the 
child. In ch. xxiii. Elohim occurs but once, and very 
properly in the mouth of the children of Heth (ver. 6). 
Jehovah guided Abraham's servant in his search for a 
wife for Isaac (ch. xxiv.), and this in so conspicuous a 
manner that even Laban and Bethuel 1 recognize the hand 
of Jehovah, the God of Abraham in the whole affair (vs. 
50, 51), and address the servant as " blessed of Jehovah " 
(ver. 31). In xxv. 11, " after the death of Abraham Elo- 
him blessed his son Isaac." Jehovah, as the guardian and 
benefactor of the chosen race, would certainly have been 
appropriate here. And yet Elohim is appropriate like- 
wise, as suggestive of the general divine beneficence and 
providential goodness, which bestowed upon Isaac abun- 
dant external prosperity. Such bounty is by no means 
limited in its exercise to the chosen race. 



THE CRITICAL PARTITION. 

The constant regard to the distinctive meaning of the 
divine names, as this has now been exhibited, must be 
due to the intention of the writer. It cannot be the ac- 
cidental result of the combination of separate Elohist 
and Jehovist documents. Nevertheless the critics un- 

1 So the heathen mariners call upon the name of Jonah's God in the 
tempest, which they recognize as sent by him. They cry unto Jehovah 
and fear Jehovah (Jon. i. 14, 16), though they had previously " cried 
every man unto his god," ver. 5. 






THE CRITICAL PARTITION 155 

dertake to parcel the contents of this section between 
P, J, and E ; and in so doing present us with three mu- 
tilated and incoherent narratives instead of the one 
closely connected and continuous narrative which we have 
already traced in the text as it lies before us. 

The only paragraphs of any length ascribed to P are 
chs. xvii. and xxiii., the former recording the covenant of 
circumcision, the latter the death of Sarah and the pur- 
chase of the cave of Machpelah. But ch. xvii. is closely 
linked to both the preceding and the following history. 
Thus it appears from xvii. 8 that Abraham is in Canaan ; 
and from vs. 18-20 that he has a son Ishmael, who is not 
the child of Sarah, and that Sarah is shortly to have a 
son of her own. And the Elohim verse (xix. 29) speaks 
of Lot, to whom Abraham was attached, and who dwelt 
in the cities of the plain. The facts thus alluded to are 
all recorded in full in the accompanying narrative, of 
which ch. xvii. and xix. 29 are thus shown to form com- 
ponent parts. But the critics seek to detach them from 
the body of the narrative by singling out scattered verses 
here and there, rent from their proper connection, suffi- 
cient to cover these allusions, and stringing them to- 
gether so as to create an appearance of continuity for P 
here, as is done for J in the account of the deluge. It 
should be borne in mind that there is no evidence what- 
ever that the hypothetical narrative thus produced ever 
had a separate existence but that which is found in the 
vague critical criteria, which we shall examine shortly. 
The skeleton life of Abraham that is ascribed to P is 
devoid of all real interest or significance. It is stripped 
of everything indicative of character. There is in it no 
exercise nor trial of faith ; no act of piety, or generosity, 
or courage ; no divine purpose ; no providential dealing 
with him, no divine communication made to him, except 
on one single occasion four and twenty years after he 



156 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

had entered Canaan. The life of the father of the faith- 
ful, so rich in the most important spiritual lessons, is re- 
duced to a jejune and barren annalistic record. This 
the critics not only admit, but insist upon ; they tell us 
it is the fault of P. He has no taste for narrative ; he 
has no historic sense, and no interest in history, but 
only for legal facts and institutions, dates and figures, 
and unmeaning lists of names. It is not disputed that 
such a writer is abstractly possible or conceivable ; 
whether there is proof of his actual existence will be 
considered hereafter. All that is proposed at present is 
to state the critics' own conception of the matter. The 
document of P in the section now before us, apart from 
ch. xvii. and xxiii., consists of these few scraps. 

xi. 27. Now these are the generations of Terah. 
Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran ; and Haran 
begat Lot. 31. And Terah took Abram his son, and 
Lot the son of Haran, his son's son, and Sarai his 
daughter-in-law, his son Abram's wife ; and they went 
forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the 
land of Canaan ; and they came unto Haran and dwelt 
there. 32. And the days of Terah were two hundred 
and five years : and Terah died in Haran. xii. 4b. And 
Abram was seventy and fi\e years old when he departed 
out of Haran. 5. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and 
Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they 
had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in 
Haran ; and they went forth to go into the land of Ca- 
naan ; and into the land of Canaan they came. xiii. 6. 
And the land was not able to bear them, that they might 
dwell together : for their substance was great, so that 
they could not dwell together, lib. And they separated 
themselves the one from the other. 12a. Abram dwelled 
in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelled in the cities of 
the Plain, xvi. la. Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him 



THE CRITICAL PARTITION 157 

no children. 3. And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar the 
Egyptian, her handmaid, after Abram had dwelt ten 
years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to Abrarn her 
husband to be his wife. 15. And Hagar bare Abram a 
son : and Abram called the name of his son, whom Ha- 
gar bare, Ishmael. 16. And Abram was fourscore and 
six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram. 
(Here follows ch. xvii. in P.) 

xix. 29. And it came to pass, when God destroyed the 
cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and 
sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he 
overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt. 1 xxi. lb. And 
[the Lord] did unto Sarah as he had spoken 2b. at the 
set time of which God had spoken to him. 3. And 
Abraham called the name of his son that was born to him, 
whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac. 4. And Abraham cir- 
cumcised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as 
God had commanded him. 5. And Abraham was an 
hundred years old when his son Isaac was born unto 
him. (Here follows ch. xxiii. in P.) 

xxv. 7. And these are the days of the years of Abra- 
ham's life which he lived, an hundred threescore and fif- 
teen years. 8. And Abraham gave up the ghost, and died 
in a good old age, an old man, and full of years ; and was 
gathered to his people. 9. And Isaac and Ishmael his 
sons buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of 
Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before 
Mamre ; 10. the field which Abraham purchased of the 
children of Heth : there was Abraham buried, and 
Sarah his wife. 11a. And it came to pass after the 
death of Abraham that God blessed Isaac his son. 

Wellhausen (" Prolegomena," p. 333) thus characterizes 

1 In order to find any tolerable connection for this verse it is neces- 
sary to suppose that it originally stood immediately after xiii. 12a, and 
has been transposed by R to its present position. 



158 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

the document P : " The individuality of the several nar- 
ratives is not merely modified but absolutely destroyed 
by the aim of the whole. The complex whole leading 
up to the law of Moses is everything ; the individual 
members signify nothing. The entire material thus also 
itself becomes a perfect vacuity ; apart from covenant- 
making it consists only in genealogy and chronology." 
This being the sort of material that is attributed to P, in 
distinction from J and E, to whom the narrative pas- 
sages are ascribed, a ready explanation is at once sug- 
gested of the difference of style and diction, upon which 
such stress is laid as though it indicated diversity of 
authorship. 

Wellhausen also calls attention to another fact of no 
small importance (" Prolegomena," p. 311), that " the his- 
torical thread of P runs completely parallel to the history 
of JE. Only thus has it been possible to incorporate 
these two writings into one another, as they lie before us 
at present in the Pentateuch." He further shows in detail 
(p. 336) that this coincidence in the arrangement of the 
materials, which prevails elsewhere, characterizes "also 
the patriarchal history ; the outline is the same in P and 
JE." This intimate and pervading relation leads to the 
inevitable conclusion that these cannot be altogether in- 
dependent documents. Thus he says (p. 356) : " What 
is offered us in P is the quintescence of the tradition, not 
in an oral but in an already written form. And the 
written shape of the preliminary history which is used 
is JE's narrative book. The arrangement which is there 
given to the popular legends 1 is here made the core of 

1 In Wellhausen's esteem the sacred history before Abraham is all 
myth. The patriarchal history is legend, containing elements of truth. 
"No historical knowledge about the patriarchs is to be gained here, 
but only about the time in which the stories about them arose in the 
people of Israel ; this later time is here, in its internal and external 






THE CRITICAL PARTITION 159 

the narrative ; the plan, which is there hidden under its 
detailed treatment, comes out here sharp and distinctly 
marked, while agreeing throughout, as the main matter 
of the whole." 

A correspondence so remarkable and continuous as to 
permit the documents to be dovetailed together in the 
manner alleged by the critics, certainly makes their inde- 
pendent origin quite insupposable. One of two things 
must be true. Either one of these documents must have 
taken its shape from the other, or both have alike taken 
their shape from one common source. Dillmann admits 
J's dependence upon E, but denies that of P upon JE, 
alleging that their apparent coincidence in the arrange- 
ment of material is due to P, who in combining the docu- 
ments made P the basis, and transposed the contents of 
JE to correspond with it. These transpositions are 
merely conjectural, however, and are of no weight beside 
the palpable fact of the identical order manifest in these 
supposed documents, as they lie embedded in the text 
before us. The majority of the critics accept the formei 
of the alternatives above stated, that of the dependence 
of one document upon the other. The advocates of the 

features, unconsciously projected back into a hoary antiquity, and mir- 
rors itself there as a transfigured fancy picture " (p. 336). While thus 
converting the lives of the patriarchs into tribal or national occur- 
rences of a later period, he is puzzled what to do with Abraham. 
" Abraham is certainly not the name of a people like Isaac and Lot ; he 
is on the whole rather incomprehensible. Naturally we cannot on this 
account regard him in this connection as a historical person ; he might 
rather be a free creation involuntarily conceived. He is likely the 
most recent figure in this company, and probably only prefixed to his son 
Isaac at a tolerably late period " (p. 337). Unbelieving critics, as a rule, 
take the same view of the unhistorical character of Genesis, and critics 
of every shade of belief, who accept the date currently assigned to J 
and E, in so doing adopt a conclusion based on the assumption that the 
stories respecting the patriarchs are not records of actual fact, but the 
inventions of a later period. 



160 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

old supplementary hypothesis held that J was in posses- 
sion of P, and made it the basis of his work. Wellhau- 
sen and they that follow his lead allege that P was in 
possession of JE, and shaped his production by it. The 
other alternative, however, affords quite as ready an ex- 
planation of the evident relationship. If the Pentateuch 
is the original, and the so-called documents are its sev- 
ered parts, both their agreement in the general, and the 
seeming discrepancies which the critics fancy that they 
discover, will be fully accounted for. Which of these 
alternatives is the true one may be left undecided for the 
present. 

The narratives ascribed to E in this section are dis- 
connected anecdotes, in which persons figure who do not 
belong to the chosen race ; as foreign princes with whom 
Abraham is brought into contact (ch. xiv., so Dillmann ; 
xx. ; xxi. 22-32), or Hagar and Ishmael in their final de- 
parture from his house (xxi. 8-21), and a portion of ch. 
xxii. relating to the sacrifice of Isaac. Here it is obvious 
that the character of the passages themselves explains 
the use of Elohim in them ; so that this does not require 
the assumption of a separate writer, who occupied him- 
self exclusively with recording incidents connected with 
foreigners, and one solitary demand of the Creator, not 
suffered to be carried into execution, but designed to be 
a supreme test of Abraham's faith and obedience. All 
these incidents have their place and fitness in the life of 
the patriarch as a Avhole, but sundered from the rest and 
taken by themselves they lose their chief significance 
and value. It is not even pretended that they constitute 
a complete life of Abraham, or a connected and continuous 
narrative of any sort. They form only a fragmentary 
account, with no proper beginning, no mutual connection, 
and no governing idea. Only two direct divine commu- 
nications to Abraham are recorded, one (xxi. 12), direct- 



1ST0 DISCREPANCIES 161 

ing him to dismiss Ishmael, and the other (xxii. 1), to sac- 
rifice Isaac. Neither of these can be properly understood 
in their isolation ; and the latter especially becomes in- 
telligible only as the crowning act of that long-continued 
course of divine discipline and training by which Abra- 
ham was fitted for his unique position as the father and 
exemplar of the chosen people of God. There is nothing 
in these so-called E paragraphs to suggest that they were 
ever grouped together in a separate document. And it 
is safe to say that such a notion would never have en- 
tered the mind of any one, who was not committed to a 
hypothesis which required it. 

The main body of this section, all of it in fact except 
the portions severed from it for P, and for E, for reasons 
explained above, is given to J. The predominant use of 
Jehovah in this portion of the history is, however, plainly 
due to its theme, and creates no presumption that there 
was a separate writer whose characteristic habit it was 
to employ it. 

NO DISCREPANCIES. 

It is alleged that there are discrepancies in the state- 
ments of P, J, and E, and that the same persons and 
events are conceived and represented differently. This 
charge is based upon the fallacy of making the part 
equal to the whole, or of identifying things which are dis- 
tinct. These alleged discrepancies are used as arguments 
for the critical partition, when they are simply the conse- 
quences of sundering that which, taken in connection, is 
entirely harmonious. 

Thus, 1. by splitting the account of Abram's migration 
a variant representation is produced of his original home, 
which according to P was in Ur of the Chaldees (xi. 31), 
while J is said to locate it in Haran (xii. 1 ; xxiv. 4, 7, 
10). And yet xv. 7, which is in a J connection, and has 
11 



162 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

the style and diction of J, expressly declares that Jeho- 
vah brought Abram from Ur of the Chaldees. 1 But crit- 
ics have an easy way of ridding themselves of testimony 
which is not to their mind. This unwelcome verse, on 
the sole ground of its annulling a discrepancy which 
they wish to create, is summarily declared to be an in- 
terpolation by E with a view to harmonizing the con- 
flicting sources. The statement of P (xi. 31) clears up 
the whole matter ; Abram went first from Ur to Haran, 
and thence to Canaan. But this does not satisfy Well- 
hausen, who suspects that it is only an effort on the part 
of P to harmonize variant traditions. " If this doubling 
the point of departure did not originate from the purpose 
of making a connection with JE, there is no such thing 
as harmonizing," 2 or as he puts it in his first edition, 3 
" I do not know what harmonizing means." The critics 
may be allowed to settle between themselves whether 
it was R or P that did the harmonizing where there 
was nothing that needed to be harmonized. 4 

2. The charge that in J (xii. l-4a) Abram went to 
Canaan by divine direction, but in P (vs. 4b, 5), of his own 
motion, is made out by rending asunder a statement 

1 See Budde : Urgeschichte, p. 439. 

2 Prolegomena, p. 331. 

3 Geschichte Israels, p. 325, note. 

4 The expression tnil^O f *ltt (xxiv. 7 ; xxxi. 13) is used interchange- 
ably with fn^lfal vn& (xxiv. 4 ; xxxi. 3). If upon the critics' own hy- 
pothesis R saw no difficulty in the latter being used of Haran (xii. 1), 
just after Abram's migration thither from Ur had been spoken of, why- 
should any difficulty arise from J's employing both these equivalent 
expressions of Haran likewise ? It is plain frbm xii. 1 that they can- 
not be restricted to "land of nativity'' in the strict sense, but are 
properly employed also of Abraham's second home, the land of his 
kindred. See Delitzsch on Gen. xii. 1. Budde (Urgeschichte, p. 441), 
who equally with Dillmann and Wellhausen imagines a contradiction 
in the case, finds it to lie not between P and J, but between the 
two supposed constituents of the latter document, J" which makes Ur 
Abram s original home, and J which makes it Haran. 



NO DISCREPANCIES 163 

which is entirely harmonious, and setting its divided 
parts in opposition. 

3. It is said that in J the promise is made to Abram 
of a land, a numerous seed 5 and a blessing to all nations 
of the earth (xii. 1-3 ; xviii. 18 ; xxii. 17, 18) ; but in P 
(xvii. 4-8), simply of a land and a numerous seed, without 
any intimation of a blessing to extend beyond his own 
descendants. But this is simply expecting a complete 
statement in one which is designedly partial. In the 
original promise and in the renewal of it upon two occa- 
sions of special solemnity, one when the Lord signified 
his approval of Abraham's unfaltering faith by coming as 
his guest in human form, and again as a reward of his 
most signal act of obedience, the blessing is set before 
him in its most ample sweep. But during all the inter- 
vening period of long expectancy of his promised child 
the divine communications made to him from time to 
time were designed to keep alive his faith in that particu- 
lar promise, whose fulfilment was so long delayed ; hence 
mention is merely made of his numerous seed, and of the 
land which they were to occupy, alike in xiii. 14-17 ; xv. 
5-7, 18, which the critics assign to J, and in xvii. 4-8, 
which they give to P. 

4. It is claimed that according to J (xii. 7, 8 ; xiii. 4, 
18), and E (xxii. 13), sacrificial worship existed in the 
times of the patriarchs ; while P makes no allusion to it 
until the time of Moses, by whom in his opinion it was 
first introduced. But this is attributing to distinct docu- 
ments embodying different conceptions of the patriarchal 
period that which simply results from the distinction 
between the divine names Elohim and Jehovah. This 
distinction is ignored by the critics, and these names 
treated as though they were practically identical, when in 
fact they represent the divine being under different as- 
pects. It is not Elohim, God in his general relation to 



164 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

the world, but Jehovah, as he has made himself known 
to his own people, who is the object of their worship. 
Hence Abram built altars to Jehovah (xii. 7 ; xiii. 4, 18), 
and called on the name of Jehovah (xii. 8 ; xxi. 33) ; and 
all passages in which the word Jehovah appears are for 
that reason uniformly ascribed to J. Their absence from 
P is due to the principle which governs the partition, 
not to some peculiar notion as to the origin of sacrifice. 
In xxii. 1 E it was Elohim, not Jehovah, who bids 
Abram offer up Isaac, because the Creator might rightful- 
ly demand of his creature the surrender of that which he 
had given him. But this was only intended as a test of 
obedience. Jehovah did not desire the sacrifice of the 
child. Accordingly the angel of Jehovah restrained 
Abram's hand ; and the ram providentially provided was 
offered up instead of his son (ver. 13). 

Wellhausen (" Prolegomena," p. 359) remarks upon the 
absurdity of the conception which the critics have sought 
to fasten upon the imaginary author of the document P, 
that " religion was at first naturalistic, then became some- 
what more positive by jumps, and finally altogether posi- 
tive in the year 1500 B.C. How is it possible to see 
historical fidelity in the representation that the patriarchs 
could slaughter but not sacrifice ; that first the sabbath 
was introduced, then the rainbow, then circumcision, and 
finally, under Moses, sacrificial worship ? " The ridicule 
here directed against P really falls upon the critics 
themselves, who are the sole authors of this glaring ab- 
surdity. 

5. In P (xiii. 6) Abram and Lot separate for want of 
room simply, while in J (ver. 7a) it is because of the 
strife of their herdmen. But this is merely objecting 
that the part is not equal to the whole. The story is 
arbitrarily split in two. The lack of room which leads 
to the strife is given to P ; the strife which results from 



NO DISCREPANCIES 165 

the lack of room to J. Each part implies the other and 
is incomplete without it. 

6. J (xii. 13, 19) tells of Abram's prevarication about 
Sarai (so E xx. 2) ; Sarai's quarrel with Hagar (xvi. 6), 
(so E xxi. 10) ; and Lot's incest (xix. 30 sqq.) ; while P nev- 
er mentions anything discreditable to the patriarchs. J 
speaks of angels (xvi. 7-11 ; xix. 1, 15 ; xxiv. 7, 40) ; so E 
(xxi. 17 ; xxii. 11) ; P never does. J tells of a divine com- 
munication in a vision (xv. 1), and E in a dream (xx. 3, 
6) ; P mentions neither. According to P Abram dwelt in 
Harare or the region of Hebron (xxiii. 2 ; xxxv. 27) ; ac- 
cording to E in Gerar (xx. 1), and Beersheba (xxi. 31). 
P tells of his purchase of the cave of Machpelah as a 
burial-place and that Sarah was buried there (ch. xxiii.), 
and Abraham himself (xxv. 9), and subsequently Isaac 
and Rebekah, and Jacob and Leah (xlix. 31 ; 1. 13) ; but 
E and J make no allusion to any such place of common 
burial. There is no real discrepancy in any of these 
cases. The apparent variance is created solely by the 
partition and cannot be adduced in support of that upon 
which it is itself dependent. 

7. It is said that different versions are given of the de- 
liverance of Lot from the overthrow of Sodom. In P 
(xix. 29) he is saved for Abraham's sake ; in J (xviii. 23) 
because of his own righteous character. In P he was 
sent out of the midst of the overthrow, implying that 
time and opportunity were afforded for escape after the 
destruction had begun ; in J the destruction did not 
come upon the city until after Lot had left it (xix. 22- 
24). The apparent variance is created by sundering re- 
lated verses, and then putting an interpretation upon 
them which their connection forbids. Even on the crit- 
ical hypothesis of different documents, the true meaning 
of each must be preserved in their combination, if II is 
to be trusted. God's remembering Abraham (xix. 29) 



166 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

and delivering Lot, is a plain allusion to the intercession 
of the former (xviii. 23), and its meaning is determined 
by it. God's sending Lot out of the midst of the over- 
throw, when he overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt, 
is a summary statement by way of resumption of what 
had been narrated (xix. 15-25), and it must be under- 
stood accordingly. 

8. According to xvii. 24, 25 ; xxi. 5, P, Ishmael was 
fourteen years old when Isaac was born ; yet it is said 
that (xxi. 14-20) E represents him after this as a young 
child needing to be carried by his mother. But the al- 
leged inconsistency is due to misinterpretation. The 
LXX. has (xxi. 14), " and he put the child on her 
shoulder ; " and Tuch so interprets the Hebrew. Dill- 
mann, however, admits that this is not the meaning of 
the existing Hebrew text, in which " putting it on her 
shoulder " is parenthetic, and refers only to the bread 
and bottle of water, while " the child " is dependent on 
the previous clause, " gave unto Hagar." Delitzsch 
points out a similar construction of the words " and 
Benjamin," in Gen. xliii. 15. Dillmann's conjecture that 
the reading of the LXX. is the original one, and that the 
Hebrew has been altered for the sake of harmonizing, is 
gratuitous and unfounded. Neither does " she cast the 
child under one of the shrubs " (ver. 15) imply that he 
was an infant ; Delitzsch compares Jer. xxxviii. 6, where 
Jeremiah was cast into a dungeon, and Matt. xv. 30, 
many were cast at Jesus's feet to be healed. Nor is there 
any such implication in the direction to Hagar to " lift 
up the lad " (ver. 18), who was faint and sick, nor in the 
statement (ver. 20) that he " grew," which simply means 
that he advanced to manhood. 

9. The statement that Sarai was so fair as to attract 
the attention of Pharaoh, to the peril of her husband's life 
(xii. 11, 15 J), is said to be incompatible with xii. 4b (cf. 



NO DISCREPANCIES 167 

xvii. 17 P), according to which she was at that time up- 
wards of sixty -five years of age. And it is said to be still 
more incongruous that she should have attracted Abim- 
elech (xx. 2 sqq. E), when (xvii. 17 P) she was more 
than ninety years old. The only point of any consequence 
in this discussion is not what modern critics may think 
of the probability or possibility of what is here narrated, 
but whether the sacred historian credited it. On the 
hypothesis of the critics, E believed it and recorded it. 
What possible ground can they have for assuming that J 
and E had less faith than E in what is here told of the 
marvellous beauty and attractiveness of the ancestress of 
the nation ? If the entire narrative could be put to- 
gether by E, and related by him with no suspicion of 
discord, the same thing could just as well have been 
done by one original writer. It may be added, if it will 
in any measure relieve the minds of doubting critics, that 
Abimelech is not said to have been taken with Sarah's 
beauty. He may have thought an alliance with "a 
mighty prince " (xxiii. 6) like Abraham desirable, even 
if Sarah's personal charms were not what they had once 
been. And when Abraham lived to the age of one hun- 
dred and seventy-five, who can say how well a lady of 
ninety may have borne her years ? 

10. It is said that J and P differ in their conception 
of God ; J's representation is anthropomorphic, that of 
P is more exalted and spiritual. But the two aspects of 
God's being, his supreme exaltation and his gracious 
condescension, are not mutually exclusive or conflicting, 
but mutually supplementary. Both must be combined 
in any correct apprehension of his nature and his relation 
to man. These are not to be sundered, as though they 
were distinct conceptions of separate minds. They are 
found together throughout the Bible. Since Elohim is 
used of God as the creator and in his relation to the 



168 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

world at large, while Jehovah is the name by which he 
made himself known to his chosen people, his chief acts 
of condescending grace naturally appear in connection 
with the latter. It is Jehovah who adopts the forms of 
men in covenanting with Abram (xv. 17), and who enters 
into familiar intercourse with him (xviii. 1 sqq.). And 
yet the manifestation of Jehovah's presence in smoke 
and flame (xv. 17 J) has a precise parallel in P in the 
cloud and fire above the tabernacle which guided Israel 
through the desert (Ex. xl. 36-38; Num. ix. 15 sqq.). 
Jehovah appeared to Abram three times — twice in J (xii. 
7 ; xviii. 1) ; once in P (xvii. 1), where the critics say 
that the text should be Elohim. Jehovah spake repeat- 
edly to Abram, and on one occasion to Hagar (xvi. 13) ; 
so did God in P to Abram (ch. xvii.), to Noah (vi. 13 ; 
viii. 15), and to the first human pair (i. 28). If it is 
speaking after the manner of men when Jehovah speaks 
of going down to Sodom to see how they have done 
(xviii. 21), it is no less so when Elohim tests the obedi- 
ence of Abraham (xxii. 1), a passage which the critics as- 
sign to another than P ; but in P God went up from 
Abraham (xvii. 22), which implies that he had come 
down to speak with him. 

"We now proceed to consider the critical partition of 
this section in detail. 



THE FAMILY OF TERAH (CH. XI. 27-32). 

The critics have had no little perplexity in disposing 
of this paragraph. In consequence of its intimate rela- 
tion to ch. xii., Astruc assigned it to J; Eichhorn, though 
with some hesitation, gave it to P. The majority of 
critics thenceforward attributed it to the latter document. 
Dillmann did the same in his first edition of Genesis ; in 
his second edition he followed Wellhausen in referring 



THE FAMILY OF TERAH (CH. XI. 27-32) 169 

ver. 29 to J and the rest to P, ver. 30 being supposed to 
belong originally at the beginning of ch. xvi., and to 
have been transferred thence by E. ; in his third edition 
he followed Budde and Hupfeld in assigning vs. 27, 31, 
32, to P, and vs. 28-30 to J. The critical embarrassment 
arises from the circumstance that while all parts of the 
paragraph are knit together in inseparable unity, they 
are at the same time linked to what precedes and follows 
with an entire disregard of the critical severance, being- 
bound alike to passages referred to P and to J. Thus, 
ver. 27 repeats the last words of the preceding genealogy, 
as is done at the opening of a new section (vi. 10 ; xxv. 
19) ; and ver. 32 sums up the life of Terah in the terms 
of the genealogy of ch. v., as is done in the case of Noah 
(ix. 29). It is clear that vs. 27, 32, are from the same 
hand as the genealogies of chs. v. andxi., which they con- 
tinue and complete ; they are accordingly held to belong 
to P. So is ver. 31, whose phraseology is identical with 
that of xii. 5, which the critics for reasons to be consid- 
ered hereafter find it convenient to refer to P, though it 
is cut out of a J connection, to which it manifestly be- 
longs. 

On the other hand, according to the latest conclusions 
of the critics, vs. 28-30 belong to J ; ver. 28 since " land 
of his nativity " is reckoned a J phrase ; ver. 29 because 
it is preliminary to xxii. 20 sqq. J, although xxv. 20 P 
requires the assumption that P must here or elsewhere 
have given a similar account of Eebekah's descent from 
Bethuel and Nahor, which R has not preserved ; ver. 30 
because it would be premature in P before ch. xvi., 
whereas it is appropriate in J as preliminary to chs. xii., 
xiii., and especially xv. 2, 3. And yet this paragraph 
cannot be torn asunder as the critics propose. For vs. 
28, 29 presuppose ver. 27, and are abrupt and unex- 
plained without it ; and ver. 31 implies the previous 



170 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

statement of Abraro's marriage (ver. 29), and needs ver. 
28 to explain why Lot went with Terah without his 
father ; and ver. 30 follows naturally and properly after 
ver. 29 with the mention of a fact at the outset, upon 
which the life of Abraham so largely turned. Moreover, 
the portion assigned to J (vs. 28-30) is not only without 
any proper beginning, but severed from ver. 31 fails to 
explain the fact assumed in ch. xxiv. J, that Abram's 
former home was in Mesopotamia and that other de- 
scendants of Terah were settled there. How the home 
of Abram's ancestors came to be in Ur of the Chaldees 
(xi. 31), when the ark landed on the mountains of Ara- 
rat (viii. 4 P), and Terah's descendants are subsequently 
found in Haran and Canaan, is a puzzle in P. This has 
led Dillmann and others to fancy that Ur of the Chaldees 
lay in Mesopotamia, in spite of its name and its posi- 
tive monumental identification, or else that it has been 
interpolated in this verse by E. The puzzle is entirely 
of the critics' own creation. The missing link, which 
explains the course of migration, is found in xi. 1-9, 
which is attributed to J ; and the whole trouble arises 
from sundering this from P, in which it is indispensa- 
ble. Dillmann's assertion that if Ur lay in Chaldea, this 
must have been inserted in ver. 31 by E in order to con- 
nect it with xi. 1-9, simply amounts to a confession of 
the real nexus in the case, introduced not by K but by 
the original writer. 

Still further, the occurrence of "Ur of the Chaldees," 
both in ver. 28 J and in ver. 31 P, annihilates, on the 
critics' own showing, the alleged discrepancy between 
these imaginary documents as to Abram's original home, 
the fallacy of which has been remarked upon before. It 
is here bolstered up by assuming that these words do 
not properly belong in ver. 28, but have been inserted by 
R. 



CALL OF ABRAM AND HIS JOURNEYS (CH. XII.) 171 



THE CALL OF ABEAM AND HIS JOURNEYS (CH. XH.). 

The critics endeavor to make a show of continuity for 
P in the history of Abraham, as has before been stated, 
by picking out a sentence here and there from chs. xii.- 
xvi., sundering it from its connection and transferring it 
to P, while the body of these chapters is given to J. 
But they have no better reason, and are no more suc- 
cessful in this than in their attempt to establish the con- 
tinuity of J in the narrative of the flood. In order to 
bridge the chasm from ch. xi. to ch. xvii., six verses and 
parts of three others, referring to the principal events 
that had taken place in the interval, are rent from their 
proper context and claimed for P, viz., Abram's removal 
from Haran to the land of Canaan (xii. 4b, 5) ; his sep- 
aration from Lot (xiii. 6, lib, 12a) ; his connection with 
Hagar (xvi. 1, 3) ; and the birth of Ishmael (vs. 15, 16). 
These verses and clauses fit perfectly in their context, 
and no one would ever dream that they had been in- 
serted from another document, but for the necessity laid 
upon the critics to discover something that could be at- 
tributed to P, which might explain the situation in ch. 
xvii., viz., Abraham's presence in Canaan (ver. 8) ; his 
son Ishmael (vs. 18, 20), born thirteen years before (ver. 
25), though Sarah had no child (vs. 17, 19) ; as Avell as 
Lot's abode in the cities of the Plain (xix. 29). But 
notwithstanding this urgent motive, Ilgen (1798) is, so 
far as I know, the only critic prior to Hupfeld (1853) 
who could find any indication of P in chs. xiii., xv., xvi. 
Astruc, Eichhorn, Gramberg, Stahelin, Delitzsch (1st 
edition), and even Yater, with his fragmentary procliv- 
ities, were equally unable to sunder anything from ch. 
xii. Tuch (1838) suggested doubtfully in his exposition, 
though with more confidence in the introduction to his 



172 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

"Commentary," that xii. 5 belonged to P on a ground 
which subsequent critics have annulled, viz., its resem- 
blance to xxxvi. 6 and xlvi. 6, which are in a context re- 
ferred by him to P, but denied by others to be his. 1 

The critics divide this chapter as follows : J, xii. l-4a, 
6-9, 10-20 ; P, vs. 4b, 5. Knobel refers vs. 6, 8a, 9, to 
P ; Schrader to E ; Kittel also to E, though ascribing 
vs. 6-9 in its present form to J. Wellhausen and Kue- 
nen make ver. 9 an insertion by R. Schrader, Well- 
hausen, Kuenen regard vs. 10-20 as a later addition to 
J ; Dillmann, Kittel, as belonging to J, but transposed 
from their original position after ch. xiii. 

THE CALL OF ABEAM (CH. XII. 1-9). 

P's account of Abram's removal from Haran begins 
abruptly (xii. 4b), and in a manner that implies that 
something is missing. The statement that " Abram was 
seventy and five years old when he departed out of 
Haran/' presupposes that this departure had been al- 
ready mentioned. And so in fact it is in what immedi- 

1 An apt illustration is here afforded of the facility with which critics, 
by slightly shifting the lines of division, can serve the purpose which 
they have in view, or can alter the complexion of the alleged docu- 
ments with which they are dealing. Tuch (Genesis, p. xliii, note) was 
inclined to assign xii. 5, 6, 8 ; xiii. 18 to P. This would account for 
the place of Sarah's death and burial (xxiii. 2, 19), which otherwise 
there is nothing in P to explain. Knobel reaches a like result by giv- 
ing P xii. 4b, 5, 6, 8a, 9. The connection in J was thus broken, but 
that was no objection on the supplementary hypothesis, of which they 
were advocates, that J was not an independent document, but con- 
sisted of sections and paragraphs added to P. Schrader gives vs. 6a, 
8a, 9, to E, on the ground that one from the northern kingdom, as he is 
assumed to be, would feel more interest in associating Abram with She- 
chem and Bethel, than J from the kingdom of Judah. Dillmann ob- 
jects that 6b and 8b cannot be separated from 6a and 8a, an objection 
equally valid, as is shown in the text, against his own removal of ver. 
5, which is a necessary link between ver. 4 and ver. 6. 



THE CALL OF ABEAM (CH. XII. 1-9) 173 

ately precedes (vs. l-4a). But this, we are told, belongs 
to J. So that it is necessary to assume that the prelim- 
inary part of P's narrative has been omitted, and these 
verses from J substituted for it. The attempt has been 
made to confirm this by alleging that a special title, 
" These are the generations of Abram," must originally 
have stood at the beginning of Abram's life x in P, as in 
the case of Isaac (xxv. 19), and Jacob (xxxvii. 2), since a 
separate section must have been devoted to this greatest 
of the patriarchs, instead of including him under " the 
generations of Terah," who is of much less account, and 
whose life is brought to a formal close in the preceding 
chapter (xi. 32) ; but that E, in replacing the opening 
words of P by those of J, dropped the title of the former 
as well. Plausible as this may sound, it is clearly a mis- 
take. For — 

1. Even if such a substitution had been made, it would 
not account for the omission of the title, had it been ap- 
propriate and originally stood there ; for like titles occur 
at the head of sections which are wholly J's (ii. 4), or in 
whose opening chapters there is not a single sentence 
from P (xxxvii. 2). 

2. The proper title of this section is "the generations" 
not of Abram but " of Terah," since it deals not only with 
Abram but other descendants of Terah as well, who are 
accordingly for this reason introduced to the reader at 
the outset (xi. 27, 29), viz., Lot, who journeyed with 
Abram to Canaan, and Nahor, whose descendants are re- 
cited without a separate title (xxii. 20-24), preparatory 
to the marriage of Isaac into this family of his kin- 
dred (ch. xxiv.). Bruston suggests that these last should 
have had a special title, " the generations of Nahor," 

1 So Knobel, Wellhausen, Dillinann. and others, following a sugges- 
tion of Ewald in his review of Delitzsch on Genesis in his Jahrbiicher d. 
Bibl. Wissenschaft for 1851-52, p. 40. 



174 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

and been inserted at the close of ch. xi. No doubt the 
author might have disposed his matter differently, and 
included it under different titles, if he had seen fit to 
do so. But the question is not what he might have done, 
nor what in the opinion of the critics he ought to have 
done, but what he actually did. 

3. While it is true that in several instances the sections 
of Genesis terminate with the death of the person named 
in the title, this is not necessarily nor invariably the 
case, e.g., the generations of Adam (ch. v.). " The gener- 
ations of Terah " are not occupied with the life of Terah, 
which is only the starting-point. The aim of the section 
is to trace the fortunes of the three families sprung from 
him, so far as they came within the proper scope of the 
sacred history. The limitation of this section to xi. 27- 
32 makes it altogether unmeaning. It becomes still 
more glaringly so on the critical hypothesis that vs. 28- 
30 are from a different document J, and do not belong to 
the section in its original form in P ; a view of which 
Dillmann justly said, in his first edition, one can then see 
no reason for a Terah section at all. 

4. The generations of Abram would be an unsuitable 
designation of a history, the emphasis and interest of 
which for several successive chapters turns upon the pa- 
triarch's childlessness. 

5. That this entire section is, in the intention of the 
author, included under the title " the generations of Te- 
rah," not of Abram, further appears from the opening 
of the next section (xxv. 19), where the genealogy is 
linked directly with xi. 27, 32, by beginning " Abraham 
begat Isaac." 

No title has been dropped, therefore, from the begin- 
ning of ch. xii. ; consequently no presumption can be 
drawn from that source in favor of different narrators. 
It may be added that as xii. 4b requires 4a to make it in- 



THE CALL OF ABEAM (CH. XII. 1-9) 175 

telligible, and this is indissolubly bound to vs. 1-3, so 
xii. 1 is linked as firmly with the preceding chapter. J's 
account cannot have begun with ch. xii. Dillmann (1st ed.), 
nor with xi. 29 Dillmann (2nd), nor with xi. 28 Dillmann 
(3rd), for in each case Abram is introduced abruptly 
and without explanation ; and xi. 27 P is required to 
precede them. Thus P is linked with J, and J with P, 
each dependent on the other to supply the needed ex- 
planation of what it contains, neither complete without 
the other, both fitting accurately together and precisely 
filling each other's gaps. Is this harmonious production 
a piece of patchwork ? Can extracts from wholly inde- 
pendent documents be made to match in this manner, 
however skilfully arranged ? And how do those repeated 
omissions, now from one document, now from the other, 
which must of necessity be assumed by the advocates of 
the current critical hypothesis, comport with what is al- 
leged of the conduct of R elsewhere, his concern to pre- 
serve the briefest and most scanty statements of his 
sources, even when they add nothing to fuller narratives 
drawn from elsewhere, the insertion being detected by its 
being a superfluous and unmeaning duplication? (Cf. 
vii. 7-9 with vs. 13-16 ; ix. 18, 19 ; xiii. 6, lib, 12a ; xix. 
29.) 

MAKES OF P. 

The reference of xii. 4b, 5, to P is argued by Hupfeld 
and others on the following grounds : 

(1) Because ver. 5 repeats 4a. But — 

a. This is no mere identical and superfluous repetition. 
A general statement of obedience to the divine command 
(ver. 4a) is followed by a more particular account of 
what was done in accordance with it (ver. 5). Nothing is 
more common in the Hebrew historians than brief sum- 
maries of this sort followed by fuller and more specific 



176 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

details, where no one imagines that there is a diversity 
of writers. So Gen. vii. 5, 7 sqq.; xxxvii. 5-8 ; xli. 45c, 
46b ; xlii. 19, 20c, 24c, 26 sqq. ; Judg. iv. 15c, 17 ; 1 Sam. 
xvii. 49, 50 ; 2 Sam. xv. 16a, 17 ; 2 Kin. xi. 16c, 20b. 

b. Yerse 5 is indispensable to make the connection 
between vs. 4a and 6. In 4a Abram goes forth, it is not 
said whither. In ver. 6 he is already in Canaan and 
passing through it. It is presupposed that he had ar- 
rived there, and that the name of the country has been 
made known to the reader and need not be repeated. 
But the missing statements on these points are only 
found in ver. 5. 

(2) xii. 5b is parallel to xi. 31b, and evidently its con- 
tinuation. 

This is unhesitatingly admitted, and is quite consistent 
with the unity of the book, of which it is a natural se- 
quence. 

(3) Yerse 5 has words and phrases peculiar to P. The 
following instances are adduced, viz. : 

1. nj^^l took, as in xi. 31 ; xxxvi. 6 ; xlvi. 6. But it is 
used in precisely the same manner in J (xxiv. 51 ; xxxii. 
23, 24 (E. Y., vs. 22, 23) ; xliii. 13 ; xlvii. 2) ; and in E. 
(xx. 14 ; xxii. 3 ; xlv. 18, 19). 

2. ttJW substance, goods, and lby\ to get, gather, are 
claimed as undoubted characteristics of P, but, as it 
would appear, on very slender grounds. The verb and 
noun occur together in four passages (Gen. xii. 5 ; xxxi. 
18 ; xxxvi. 6, 7 ; xlvi. 6) ; and the noun alone in six other 
places in Genesis, and twice besides in the rest of the 
Pentateuch. The critics themselves refer it six times to 
another than P (Gen. xiv. 11, 12, 16, 21 ; xv. 14 ; Num. 
xvi. 32). Once, and once only, it stands in a context by 
common consent referred to P (Num. xxxv. 3). In every 
other instance the verse or paragraph in which it is 
found is cut out of a J or E context, or one of disputed 



THE CALL OF ABRAM (CH. XII. 1-9) 177 

origin, and is assigned to P mainly because of this very 
word which is arbitrarily assumed to belong to him. 

3. T25SD person, is not peculiar to P, as appears from its 
occurrence in Gen. ii. 7 ; xiv. 21 ; Deut. x. 22 ; xxiv. 7 ; 
xxvii. 25 ; Josh. x. 28-39 ; xi. 11 ; not to speak of Gen. 
xlvi. 15-27, which several eminent critics ascribe to 
another than P. Dillmann (" Genesis," p. 230) remarks 
that " it was scarcely possible to avoid using tcs: for per- 
sons of both sexes, free and slave," and (" Exodus, Leviti- 
cus," p. 535) that it is not a certain indication of P. 

4. fyss fix land of Canaan, is classed as character- 
istic of P ; but it occurs repeatedly in both J and E, viz. : 
xlii. 5, 7, 13, 29, 32 ; xliv. 8 ; xlv. 17, 25 ; xlvi. 31 ; xlvii. 1, 
4, 13, 14, 15 ; 1. 5, where, as Dillmann remarks, it stands 
in contrast with the land of Egypt. In like manner it is 
used in the passages now in question to designate the land 
promised to Abram (xvii. 8), in contrast with Haran from 
which he came (xii. 5 ; xvi. 3), and with the cities of the 
plain selected by Lot (xiii. 12). 

5. It appears, accordingly, that these words, whether 
regarded singly or collectively, afford no indication of P 
as distinguished from the other so-called documents. 
There is, however, a striking resemblance in the phrase- 
ology of xii. 5 ; xxxi. 18 ; xxxvi. 6 ; xlvi. 6 ; which cre- 
ates a strong presumption, if not a certainty, that these 
verses are all from the same hand. The critics refer them 
all alike to P ; but they do so in spite of the fact that 
xii. 5 is in a J context, xxxi. 18 and xlvi. 6, in an E con- 
text, and that of xxxvi. 6 is disputed. Their assignment 
to P is altogether arbitrary. They are made to sustain 
each other in this, while there is no reason for sundering 
any one of them from the connection in which it stands, 
and attributing it to a different document, but the mere 
will of the critics. Words descriptive of the possessions 
of the patriarchs are naturally grouped together when 

12 



178 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

mention is made of their migrations. But the only rea- 
son for alleging these words to be characteristic of P is 
that these migrations are assigned to him in the arbi- 
trary manner already described. The critics have them- 
selves created the criterion, to which they then confi- 
dently point in justification of the partition which they 
have made. 

(4) This statement could not have been lacking in P. 
This is a frank avowal of the motive by which the 

critics are actuated in rending ver. 5 from its connection. 
It is necessary in order to make out an appearance of 
continuity for this supposititious document. Instead of 
an argument for the hypothesis it is simply a confession 
of the straits to which it is reduced. 

(5) The mention of Abram's age in ver. 4b is held to 
be a sufficient reason for ascribing it to P. 

a. It is a purely arbitrary assumption that dates and 
statements of men's ages are to be referred to P, even 
when, as in the present instance, the context in which 
they are embedded is derived by the critics from some 
other document. A particularly glaring case occurs in 
xli. 46, where Joseph's age when he stood before Pharaoh 
is assigned to P, though there is nothing in that docu- 
ment to which to attach it. It is easy to manufacture a 
criterion of this sort, and carry it relentlessly through, 
and then point to the fact that all the dates are to be 
found in P in evidence of the correctness of the rule. 
They are there for the simple reason that this is where 
the critics have put them. It has no further significance 
if the various statements of the ages of the patriarchs, 
when put together, yield a consistent chronology ; 1 this is 

1 It may be observed here that there is no conflict in the chronology 
between xii. 4b and xi. 32 ; though, if there were, this would be no 
argument for a diversity of writers, since in the esteem of the critics 
both belong to the same document. Abram left Haran many years be- 



THE CALL OF ABRAM (CH. XII. 1-9) 179 

no excuse for critical surgery, but is only one indication 
more that the book of Genesis is woven together too 
firmly to be rent asunder, except by a violence which will 
destroy the fabric. Inconsistently enough, where a dif- 
ferent motive operates, the critics allow that E recorded 
Joseph's age (Gen. 1. 22, 26), and that of Joshua (Josh, 
xxiv. 29) in which P, as a native of Judah, is presumed 
to have less interest ; and even that of Caleb of the tribe 
of Judah (Josh. xiv. 7, 10), which occurs in a connection 
that constrains them to refer it to E. 

b. 4b presupposes 4a. It is not a statement that 
Abram went forth from Haran, but a declaration of his 
age at the time, implying that the fact of his having done 
so had been already mentioned ; and for this reason it 
cannot connect with xi. 31, as the critics propose, where 
no such affirmation is made. 

(6) According to vs. 4b, 5, Abram simply continues the 
migration to Canaan begun by his father (xi. 31), acting 
from the same impulse, and from natural motives but 
without any divine call ; whereas ver. 1 represents his 
journey as undertaken at the divine command, Abram 
not knowing whither he was to go. 

But there is no diversity of representation implying 
that these verses have been drawn from diverse sources. 
On the contrary they are mutually supplementary. The 
movement initiated by Terah to find more desirable 
quarters was carried out by Abram at Jehovah's bid- 
ding, who guided him to the land to which his father had 
originally intended to go. And with this the statement 

fore Terah's death. Only the writer, according to his uniform method, 
completes Terah's life before proceeding to that of Abram (cf . xxv. 7 ; 
xxxv. 29). The Samaritan text, in order to relieve this imaginary diffi- 
culty, reduces the age of Terah from two hundred and five to one hun- 
dred and forty-five years, Acts vii. 4 follows the order of the narrative, 
not that of time. 



180 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

of xv. 7 is in full accord. Jehovah providentially led 
Abram to accompany Terah to Haran, and then by an 
immediate call brought him to Canaan. The divine call 
which is expressed in ver. 1 is implied in 4b, according 
to which Abram leaves Haran in the lifetime of his 
father. Why should he leave Terah behind him if they 
were migrating under one common impulse ? 

Knobel assigns vs. 6, 8a, 9, also to P ; to which Dill- 
mann objects that P shows no interest in connecting the 
patriarchs with the holy places of later times, though he 
excepts xxxv. 9 from this remark. Schrader refers 6a, 
8a, 9, to E, who, as a North-Israelite, inclined to link 
Abram with Shechem and Bethel. With this Dillmann 
and Kittel concur so far as to regard E as the source from 
which J, as the author of vs. 6-9, drew the mention of 
these localities. This is based upon the notion that the 
recorded lives of the patriarchs are not the recital of ac- 
tual events, but a reflection of the ideas of later times, 
and that the places where they are said to have dwelt or 
worshipped are so designated because of local sanctua- 
ries established there in subsequent ages, to which credit 
was attached by stories that they had been hallowed by 
the presence of their ancestors. All speculations about 
authorship which spring from this false conception of 
the patriarchal history, are, of course, entirely baseless. 

Meanwhile the unity of the entire paragraph (vs. 1-9) 
is obvious. Verse 8b presupposes 8a, and cannot be sep- 
arated from it ; 8a presupposes ver. 6, and this in its turn 
ver. 5, which defines the land referred to and mentions 
the arrival there, which is implied, but not stated, in ver. 
6. Again, 4b presupposes 4a, and this vs. 1-3. The 
grant of the land in ver. 7, notwithstanding its present 
occupancy by others (6b), is with express reference to the 
promise in ver. 1. And ver. 9 is the natural continua- 
tion of the marches in vs. 6, 8. All is thus concatenated 



THE CALL OF ABRAM (CH. XII. 1-9) 181 

together in a manner to defy critical severance. On the 
assumption that vs. 10-20 is an interpolation, it has been 
argued that ver. 9 was inserted by E as a connective. 
This inference is by no means necessary, even if the as- 
sumption were correct ; but it falls as a matter of course 
if the latter is shown to be untrue, which will be done 
presently. 

MARKS or J. 

Dillmann finds the following criteria of the document 
J in vs. l-4a, 6-9, viz. : 1, The divine call ; 2, divine wor- 
ship ; 3, mrp Jehovah ; 4, TO^n ninsM-bs all the fam- 
ilies of the earth ; 5, 2 -pn3 be blessed in ; 6, bbp curse. 
It has been before shown that there is a reason for the 
occurrence of the name Jehovah here and elsewhere in 
the life of Abram quite independent of the question of 
documents ; also that patriarchal worship is as a rule 
connected with that name ; and there is an equally ob- 
vious reason why the call of Abram should likewise be 
similarly connected. It will be observed that the lin- 
guistic criteria alleged are all limited to one verse (ver. 
3). The phrase, " all the families of the earth," occurs 
but once besides in the Pentateuch (xxviii. 14), where 
the same promise is repeated to Jacob. The other repe- 
titions of this promise are by the critics referred to II 
(xviii. 18 ; xxii. 18 ; xxvi. 4), and there the equivalent ex- 
pression "pl^n ^ia bb all the nations of the earth, is used. 
The Niphal of Tpa to bless, occurs but three times in the 
Old Testament, each time in this same promise (xii. 3; 
xxviii. 14 J ; and xviii. 18 E). Since these expressions 
are limited to this one promise, and occur in J but once 
in addition to the verse now before us, they cannot be 
classed as indications of the existence of a separate doc- 
ument so called. Moreover, the promise of a blessing 
to all nations was given three times to Abram on occa- 



182 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

sions of special note (xii. 3 ; xviii. 18; xxii. 18), once to 
Isaac (xxvi. 4), and once to Jacob (xxviii. 14) ; on all other 
occasions in J (xii. 7 ; xiii. 15, 16 ; xv. 5, 7, 18), or P, 
(xvii. 4-8 ; xxviii. 3, 4 ; xxxv. 11, 12) attention is especially 
directed to the gift of Canaan and of a numerous poster- 
ity without any mention of their relation to the world at 
large. And the limitation in these instances is not sug- 
gestive of the peculiarity of a particular document, but 
grows out of the circumstances of each case. That the 
phrases now in question could have no place in these re- 
stricted promises is obvious. Neither their occurrence 
nor their omission can afford a plea for a diversity of 
documents. It remains to be added that while the pre- 
cise combinations and forms above adduced do not occur 
in P, for the reason now given, the words themselves are 
found in passages ascribed to P ; thus PTOM family, 
very frequently, and even in application to the nations 
of mankind (x. 5, 20, 31, 32) ; ntfia earth (i. 25 ; vi. 20 ; 
ix. 2) ; spa bless (Gen i. 22, 28 ; K 3 ; v. 2 ; ix. 1, etc.). 

One word remains of the alleged characteristics of J, 
b^p curse, which is as little to the purpose as the preced- 
ing. Apart from Gen. xii. 3 it occurs but once in J 
(viii. 21) ; four times in P (Lev. xxiv. 11, 14, 15, 23) ; 
once in E (Josh. xxiv. 9) ; once in D (Deut. xxiii. 5, E. 
V., ver. 4) ; twice in the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xxi. 
17 ; xxii. 27, E. V., ver. 28) ; three times in the Holiness 
Laws (Lev. xix. 14 ; xx. 9 bis). 

ABEAM IN EGYPT (VS. 10-20). 

Three instances are recorded in which the wives of 
the patriarchs attracted the attention of monarchs, and 
through the prevarication of their husbands were 
brought into peril, from which by God's providence 
they were delivered, viz.: Sarai at the court of Pharaoh 



ABRAM ITT EGYPT (CH. XII. 10-20) 183 

iu Egypt (xii. 10-20) ; and again with Abiraelech, king 
of Gerar (ch. xx.) ; and Kebekah before another king of 
the same name (xxvi. 6-11). These are to the critics va- 
riant accounts of the same event, or different forms of 
the same legend. Knobel regards ch. xx. as the original 
narrative, and chs. xii. and xxvi. as later modifications of 
the legend. Kuenen (" Hexateuch," p. 252) says that a 
saga, of which Isaac was originally the subject, has here 
and in ch. xx. been transferred to Abram. Delitzsch 
ventures no positive affirmation, but seems in doubt 
whether some duplication or transposition may not have 
taken place. " It is enough," he says, " for us to know 
that the three histories are three traditions contained in 
ancient sources, that the redactor deserves our thanks 
for not suppressing one in favor of the others, and that 
all these attest God's grace and faithfulness, which ren- 
der the interference of human weakness and sin with 
his plan of grace harmless, and even tributary to its suc- 
cessful issue." But the value of the religious lesson is de- 
pendent on the reality of the occurrence. Is this a Jew- 
ish notion of God embodied in a fiction, or is it a fact in 
which God has himself revealed his character ? A dis- 
trust of well-accredited facts because of a certain meas- 
ure of similitude to other facts would throw history into 
confusion. Must we regard the battles of Bull Run, 
fought in successive years on the same spot, and termi- 
nating the same way, but in different periods of the war 
and under different commanders, as variant and conflict- 
ing accounts of some one transaction that can no longer 
be accurately identified ? Why might not Abram repeat 
in Gerar what he had done in Egypt, when it was under- 
stood between him and Sarai that they were to pass for 
brother and sister in " every place " to which they 
should come (xx. 13) ? And why may not Isaac, whose 
life was so largely patterned after that of his father, have 



184 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

been misled into an imitation of his error in this in- 
stance ? 

Wellhausen claims that vs. 10-20 is a later addition to 
the text of J, because Lot was not with Abram in Egypt, 
though according to J he was with him both before (ver. 
4a) and after (xiii. 5) ; and Abram was at the very same 
place in xiii. 4 as in xii. 8, from which it may be inferred 
that he had not meanwhile changed his position. Dill- 
mann thinks that the true place of this narrative in J 
was after the separation of Abram and Lot (ch. xiii.), and 
that it was transposed by R to remove it further from ch. 
xx. But the visit to Egypt is confirmed by xxvi. 1, 2 ; 
the presence of Lot there by the express statement, " Lot 
with him " (xiii. 1) ; and Abram is explicitly said to have 
retraced his steps to the point from which he had started 
(vs. 3, 4). These positive confirmations are by a stroke 
of the critics' pen ejected from the text, and attributed to 
R, for no imaginable reason but that they nullify a base- 
less critical conjecture. Lot's name does not occur in 
xii. 10-20, because Abram was the principal party and 
there was nothing to record respecting Lot. For the 
same reason he is not mentioned in vs. 6-9, nor Aner, 
Eshcol, and Mamre, in xiv. 14-23 (cf. vs. 13, 24) ; nor 
Nahor in xi. 31, whose migration to Haran can only be 
inferred from allusions subsequently made (xxiv. 10). It 
may also be remarked that xvi. 1 lends an incidental 
confirmation to xii. 16 ; Pharaoh's gift to Abram ex- 
plains the presence of an Egyptian maid in his house- 
hold. 

Dillmann notes a few words and phrases in this para- 
graph as indicative of J. These and others of the same 
sort noted in other cases are of no account for two rea- 
sons. Inasmuch as the bulk of the narrative is given to 
J or E, and only scattered scraps to P, the great major- 
ity of words appropriate to narrative will, of course, be 






SEPARATION FROM LOT (CH. XIII.) 185 

found in J or E, and comparatively few in P. Besides, 
several of the words adduced occur but rarely even in 
J, and cannot, therefore, with any propriety be held to 
be characteristic of his style. If their absence from a 
large proportion of the paragraphs of J does not prove 
these to be from a different pen, how can their absence 
from the paragraphs of P be urged in proof of a diversity 
of documents, especially if there was no occasion to use 
them? 

MARKS OF J. 

1. STirr Jehovah, explained already. 

2. b a^n treated ivell, ver. 16, only once besides in J 
(Num. x. 32), and twice in E (Ex. i. 20 ; Josh. xxiv. 20) ; 
in the same sense with a different preposition Gen. 
xxxii. 10, 13, E. Y., vs. 9, 12 J ; without a preposition 
Lev. v. 4 P. 

3. tfj I pray thee (ver. 13), often in J and E, but once 
at least in P (Gen. xxxiv. 8), perhaps also Num. xx. 10 
(so Noldeke and Schrader). 

4. tfj-nsn behold now (ver. 11 ; xvi. 2 ; xviii. 27, 31 ; xix. 
2, 8, 19, 20; xxvii. 2 J). 

5. "nn^s/or the sake of (vs. 13, 16), always referred to 
J, E, or R. See ch. vi.-ix., Marks of J, No. 6. 

6. bb}3 because of (ver. 13), only twice besides in J(xxx. 
27 ; xxxix. 5) ; in D (Deut. i. 37 ; xv. 10 ; xviii. 12) ; all in 
the Hexateuch. 

7. tfm naWTtta ivhat is this that thou hast done (ver. 18 ; 
Gen. iii. 13 ; xxvi. 10 ; Ex. xiv. 11 J" ; Gen. xxix. 25 ; xlii. 
28 ; Ex. xiv. 5 E) ; once without a verb (Ex. xiii. 14 J). 

SEPARATION FROM LOT (CH. XIII.). 

The critics divide this chapter thus : 

J, vs. 1-5, 7-lla, 12b-18 ; P, vs. 6, lib, 12a. 



186 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

Knobel assigns to P, vs. 3a, 6, 10a,c, 12. 18a. 

Schrader parcels the portion of J between J and E 
thus : 

J, vs. 1, 4, 7b, 10b, 13-17, 18b ; E, vs. 2, 3, 5, 7a, 8- 
10a, 11a, 12b, 18a. 

Wellhausen gives to E. vs. 1, 3, 4, and regards vs. 14- 
17 as a later addition to J. 

Dillmann gives R the words, " and Lot with him," in 
ver. 1, together with vs. 3, 4. 



GROUNDS OF PARTITION. 

The manipulation of the text attributed to R by Well- 
hausen and Dillmann simply means that it is incompatible 
with their notions respecting xi. 10-20. Verses 1, 3, 4 de- 
scribe Abram's return from Egypt with his wife and Lot, 
and his proceeding by successive stages to the point 
from which he had set out. This shows conclusively that 
he had visited Egypt, and had visited it at that time, 
as recorded in the preceding chapter. Wellhausen, to 
whom the Egyptian episode is a later fabrication, is 
obliged to rid himself of vs. 1, 3, 4, altogether. Dill- 
mann, in whose view it occurred after Abram's separa- 
tion from Lot, is also compelled to reject vs. 3, 4, but he 
allows ver. 1 to stand as the conclusion of the narrative 
in its original position, only without the words " and Lot 
with him," which would wreck his whole assumption. It 
is then claimed that vs. 2, 5, connect directly with xii. 8. 

That such a factitious connection is possible proves 
nothing as to the original constitution of the text. It 
warrants no suspicion that the omitted portions do not 
properly belong in their present position. Paragraphs 
and sections can be dropped from any narrative or from 
any piece of composition that ever was written without 
destroying its apparent continuity. This is particularly 



SEPARATION FROM LOT (CH. XIII.) 187 

the case with an episode like the present, which, though it 
has its importance and appropriateness in its place, might 
be thrown out without disturbing the general current of 
the history. 

The fact is that the connection is perfect as it stands, 
and there is not the slightest reason for calling in the 
aid of R except to patch up an unfounded critical con- 
jecture. Abram returns (ver. 1) with his wife and pos- 
sessions from Egypt to the southern district of Palestine 
through which he had passed on his way to Egypt (xii. 
9). The presence of Lot with him, to which there was 
no occasion to allude before, is now mentioned as pre- 
paratory to the separation which was shortly to take 
place, and to which the whole narrative is now tending. 
The riches of Abram (ver. 2), who advances to his former 
position in the land by stated marches (vs. 3, 4), (the ex- 
pression is suggestive of the progress of a large company 
or caravan), and the flocks and herds of Lot (ver. 5), 
picture the situation. Then follows in ver. 6 precisely 
what might be expected — the land was incapable of sup- 
porting them together. The result was strife between 
their respective herdmen (ver. 7a), and the difficulty was 
aggravated (ver. 7b) by the presence of the native in- 
habitants who tenanted the region. 

The exigencies of the divisive hypothesis make it nec- 
essary to find material for P as well as J in this chapter. 
In xix. 29, which is referred to P, it appears that Lot 
had parted from Abram, and the reader must have been 
made aware of the fact. In order to find such a state- 
ment in P the critics propose to rend ver. 6 from the 
closely concatenated paragraph just reviewed. In justi- 
fication of this it is urged — 

1. Yerse 6 is superfluous beside the detailed account 
of the separation (vs. 7 sqq.) and is somewhat inconsis- 
tent with it in tracing the separation to the general rea- 



188 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

son of the greatness of their possessions instead of its 
special occasion the strife of the herdmen ; and its last 
clause goes beyond what immediately follows and extends 
to the separation itself (ver. 12). But — 

a. This disregards the frequent usage of Hebrew 
writers to state first in a summary manner what is subse- 
quently unfolded in detail. Thus, Judg. xx. 35, 36a, pre- 
cedes the more particular recital, vs. 36b-46 ; 1 Kin. v. 9 
is expanded in vs. 10-14 (E. V., iv. 29 in vs. 30-34) ; vi. 
14 in vs. 15-36 ; xi. 3b in vs. 4-8 ; 2 Kin. xxi. 2 in vs. 3-9. 
See other examples of a like nature given above under 
xii. 5. 

b. Yerse 6 is neither superfluous beside ver. 7, nor in- 
consistent with it. It explains the occasion of the strife 
that followed. And it is important as showing that a 
peaceful separation was the only available remedy. The 
strife did not spring from petty or accidental causes, 
which were capable of adjustment. It was inherent in 
the situation. The land could not furnish pasture and 
wells enough for their superabundant flocks. Collision 
was inevitable if they remained together. By erasing 
ver. 6 this real and pressing necessity disappears. It is 
to this that the statements respecting the largeness of 
the possessions of both Abram and Lot were meant to 
lead up (vs. 2, 5). It is this which is emphasized by the 
reference to the Canaanite and the Perizzite (ver. 7), 
which has no meaning otherwise. Ver. 6 is thus essen- 
tial in the connection, and cannot have belonged to an- 
other document. 

2. Its close correspondence with xxxvi. 7. 

The expressions in the two passages are almost identi- 
cal, which speaks strongly for their common authorship. 
And this cannot be too strongly affirmed and insisted 
upon in the interest of the unity of the book. This is 
no argument for diversity of documents, and no proof 



SEPARATION FROM LOT (CH. XIII.) 189 

that ver. 6 belongs to any other than its present context. 
By an arbitrary dictum of the critics the four principal 
passages recording the migrations of the patriarchs (xii. 
5 ; xxxi. 18 ; xxxvi. 6, 7 ; xlvi. 6), which are all of one 
stamp and evidence themselves to be from the same 
hand, are referred to a document distinct from the con- 
text in which they stand, and their prominent words are 
classed as criteria of that document. This is then made 
a base of operations for forcing other passages out of 
their proper connection, and thus building up this sup- 
posititious document. But the argument partakes too 
much of the character of a vicious circle to be convinc- 
ing. 

The remainder of the chapter is bound as closely to- 
gether as is that portion already considered. Kecogniz- 
ing the real occasion of the strife, and the only practicable 
mode of terminating or avoiding it, Abram (vs. 8, 9) 
proposes a separation and generously offers his younger 
kinsman his choice of any part of the land. Lot chose 
in consequence the fertile plain of the Jordan (vs. 10, 
11). Thus they separated, Abram dwelling in the land 
of Canaan, and Lot in the cities of the plain, moving his 
tent as far as Sodom (ver. 12). The wickedness of this 
city is then remarked upon (ver. 13), to give an intima- 
tion of its approaching doom and of the issue of Lot's 
unwise choice. 

Under the same pressure as before, the critics here pro- 
pose to sunder vs. lib, 12a from its context and give it 
to P. In favor of this it is urged — ■ 

1. Verse lib is unnecessary after 11a ; and 12a repre- 
sents Lot as having a fixed abode, while according to 11a 
and 12b he led the wandering life of a nomad in tents. 
But —a. After the mention of Lot's removal eastward it 
was still important to state distinctly that this effected a 
separation between him and Abram. This is the very 



190 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

point of the narrative, as is indicated by the triple repe- 
tition of the word ; in ver. 9, " separate thyself," ver. 14, 
" after that Lot was separated," ver. 11, " and they sepa- 
rated." This last cannot be severed from the other two. 
"With all the emphasis thrown upon the fact of separation 
the critics would have us suppose that while it was pro- 
posed by Abram (ver. 9), and mention is made of what 
occurred after it had taken place (ver. 14), the act of sep- 
arating was not itself noted ; and that the record of sep- 
aration in the text, with its evident allusion to Abram's 
proposal, is a fragment from a different document. 

b. The structure of the sentences forbids the partition 
made by the critics. The repetition of Lot, as the sub- 
ject of the second verb in ver. 11, can only be explained 
by its being contrasted with Abram's remaining behind 
in Canaan ; ver. 12a is, therefore, necessary to complete 
the construction. Kautzsch and Socin concede as much 
when they say that J must have had such a clause but 
R omitted it in order to adopt that of P. Still further, 
in ver. 14 Jehovah precedes the verb of which it is the 
subject. This is also due to contrast with ver. 12, where 
the same phenomenon twice appears. What Abram did, 
and Lot did, and Jehovah did, stand in manifest rela- 
tion ; and ver. 12 cannot accordingly be separated from 
ver. 14 as an interjected fragment from a different docu- 
ment. 

c. As to the alleged diversity in Lot's mode of life, it 
is plain that R, or whoever gave the text its present form, 
saw none, or he would not have joined mutually incon- 
sistent clauses without explanation. And such diversity, 
if it existed, would prove inconvenient to the critics ; for 
in ch. xix. (J) Lot is not leading a tent life, but dwelling 
in one of the cities of the plain, in accordance with what 
they here assign to P, but conflicting with what they as- 
sign to J. And in ver. 18 the same two verbs are com- 



SEPARATION FROM LOT (CH. XIII.) 191 

bined in relation to Abram, which are used of Lot in 
ver. 12a and b, and are here set in opposition by the 
critics. Where is the difficulty in assuming, as both 
xiii. 6, 12a (P), and xiii. 12b, ch. xix. (J) require, that Lot 
took up his quarters in one of the cities, while those in 
charge of his flocks lived in tents on the plain ? 

2. " Cities of the plain " (xiii. 12) corresponds with 
the expression in xix. 29 P, as against xiii. 10, 11, " the 
plain of Jordan," and 12b, " Sodom," expressions of J. 

But a purely factitious difference is created here by 
arbitrarily dividing a sentence, and giving part to one 
document and part to another. " The plain of Jordan " 
differs from " Sodom " as much as the latter differs from 
the " cities of the plain ; " so that if the latter can be 
urged in proof of diversity of authorship, the former may 
likewise ; and it would follow that what the critics here 
assign to J should be partitioned between different writ- 
ers. " The plain of Jordan " only occurs xiii. 10, 11 ; 
elsewhere it is simply " the plain," alike in xix. 17, 25, 
28, assigned to J, and in xiii. 12, xix. 29, assigned to P. 
Moreover, according to J (xiii. 10 ; xix. 24, 25, 28 ; cf. x. 
19), there was more than one city in the plain, so that P's 
phrase is completely justified. 1 

3. The verses assigned to P (vs. 6, lib, 12a) have 
words and phrases peculiar to that document. But the 
futility of this plea is obvious on the slightest examina- 
tion. 

1 " It is alleged that one narrator calls the cities about the Jordan ' the 
cities of the plain,' and the other ' all the plain of Jordan.' But the 
latter cannot of itself denote those cities, but only the great plain by 
the Jordan. Therefore it stands (xiii. 10, 11) quite properly of the land 
which Lot chose as well watered, whilst with equal propriety Lot dwells 
in the cities of the plain (xiii. 12), and these cities are destroyed by God 
(xix. 29)." — Ewald, Komposition d. Genesis, pp. 118, 119. 



192 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 



MARKS OP P 

Dillmann specifies the following : 

1. IDsffi substance. See word No. 2, under xii. 5. 

2. tftoj to bear (ver. 6), is claimed for P, by which can 
only be meant that it occurs once, though only once, in 
a precisely similar connection — xxxvi. 7 — a verse arbitra- 
rily ascribed to P. The verb itself occurs repeatedly 
in J and E. It is used in the sense of " bearing " in J 
(Gen. iv. 13 ; vii. 17 ; Num. xi. 14 ; xiv. 33), and in E (Ex. 
xviii. 22). 

3. ntij? to dwell (vs. 6, 12), is also claimed for P, 
whereas it occurs repeatedly in J and E, not only in 
other applications, but with express reference to the 
patriarchs in Canaan : J, xiii. 18 ; . xix. 30 (Lot) ; xxv. 
lib ; xxvi. 6, 17 ; E, xx. 1, 15 ; xxii. 19 ; xxxv. 1. 

4- "J?33 p")$ land of Canaan (ver. 12). See word No. 4, 
under xii. 5. 

5. 1S3n "n# cities of the plain only occurs xiii. 12 ; xix. 
29; cf. ver. 25. See above. 

The assertion that xix. 29 has been transposed from its 
proper position, and that it was originally attached to 
xiii. 12a, is altogether groundless, and merely betrays the 
embarrassment created by sundering it from the connec- 
tion in which ifc stands, and to which, as we shall see 
hereafter, it is firmly bound both by its matter and form, 
the change in the divine name being for a sufficient rea- 
son and not suggestive of a different writer. 

The significance of Lot's separating from Abram ap- 
pears from the enlarged promise, of which it furnishes 
the occasion, of all the land to him and to his seed forever, 
and the multiplication of his seed as the dust of the earth 
(vs. 14-17). The thoroughly arbitrary manner in which 
the critics deal with the text, rejecting from it whatever 



SEPARATION FROM LOT (CH. XIII.) 193 

does not correspond with their preconceived notions, may 
be illustrated by Wellhausen's treatment of this passage. 
He says : 1 " Grounds of a general nature, which will con- 
vince few, move me to regard xiii. 14-17 as a later addi- 
tion. It is not the habit of J to let God speak so without 
ceremony to the patriarchs ; he is always particular to nar- 
rate a theophany in a place precisely indicated, which is 
then hallowed by this appearing for all time." To this 
Dillmann very properly replies that xii. 1 is of itself suf- 
ficient to show that God does not always speak toAbram 
in theophanies in the passages assigned to J ; besides 
the place in which the present communication was made 
is designated (xiii. 3, 4). It may be added further, that 
the notion of Wellhausen and other critics that the stories 
of divine manifestations to the patriarchs originated in 
the local sanctuaries of later times, inverts the order of 
cause and effect. It was not the sanctity attached to 
certain spots by the Israelites which gave rise to the 
stories of the theophanies ; but it was the fact of these 
theophanies and the sacred associations thence resulting 
which led to the establishment of illegitimate worship in 
these places in after-ages. 

MARKS OF J 

This chapter, exclusive of the verses referred to P and 
R, is claimed for J on two grounds, viz. : 

(1) Its allusions to other J passages, e.g., " garden of 
the Lord," ver. 10 to chs. ii., iii. ; the wickedness of 
Sodom, ver. 13 to ch. xix. 

But apart from the fact that these J passages did not 
themselves belong to an independent document, the chap- 
ter is likewise linked to so-called P passages ; to xix. 29 
P, which implies Lot's separation from Abram and his re- 

1 Composition d. Hexateuchs, p. 23. 
13 



194 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

moval to the cities of the plain here recorded. The attempt 
is indeed made to evade this by slicing vs. 6, lib, 12a, from 
the rest of the narrative ; but this has been shown to be 
impracticable. Also to xxiii. 2, 19 ; xxxv. 27 P, which 
imply the record in xiii. 18, that Abram made his home 
in " Harare which is in Hebron." 

(2) The occurrence in vs. 8, 9, 14-17, of words and ex- 
pressions which are used in J elsewhere. 

1. tfj I pray thee (vs. 8, 9, 14). See under ch. xii. 10- 
20, Marks of J, No. 3. 

2. 'pE'in go to the right, b^8Eton go to the left (ver. 9) ; 
these verbs occur nowhere else in the Pentateuch ; the con- 
trast of right and left occurs Gen. xxiv. 49 ; Num. xxii. 
26 J ; Num. xx. 17 E ; Ex. xiv. 22, 29 P ; and repeatedly in 
Deuteronomy ; also in Josh. i. 7 ; xxiii. 6, which Dill- 
mann refers to D. 

3. Ys. 14-17 belong to the progressive series of prom- 
ises given by Jehovah to Abram, and naturally deal in 
the same or equivalent phrases. Thus the four points of 
the compass, N., S., E., "W., as in alike connection, xxviii. 
14, where, however, Wellhausen suspects a different 
writer because the order is Yv r ., E., N., S. ; " thy seed 
as the dust of the earth," as xxviii. 14 ; " not to be count- 
ed," as xv. 5 ; xxxii. 13 (E. V., 12) ; Num. xxiii. 10. 

But words and phrases reckoned peculiar to P are also 
found in the J portion of this chapter. 

TTOTab on his journeys (ver. 3) ; both the word and the 
form are said to be characteristic of P ; this form of the 
word occurs exclusively in P (Ex. xvii. 1 ; xl. 36, 38 ; 
Num. x. 6, 12 ; xxxiii. 2) ; a like use of the same prepo- 
sition and a suffix with other nouns is held to be a mark 
of P in Gen. viii. 19 ; x. 5, 20, 31, 32 ; 2?©"52 is found be- 
sides in P, in other constructions, in Num. x. 2, 28 ; xxxiii. 
1 ; but nowhere else in the Old Testament except Deut. 
x. 11. 



abram's rescue of lot (CH. XIV.) 195 

11S3 to be separated (vs. 9, 14), was claimed as a mark 
of P in distinction from J in Gen. x. 5, 32. 

" The land is before thee " (ver. 9) has its only paral- 
lels in xxxiv. 10 ; xlvii. 6 (P), and xx. 15 (E). 

" The Canaanite was then in the land " (xii. 6), and 
"The Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the 
land " (xiii. 7), are not later glosses, since they are closely 
connected with the paragraphs in which they stand, as 
has been already shown ; nor are they indications of the 
post-Mosaic origin of the narrative. They contain no 
implication that the Canaanites and Perizzites had passed 
away. It is quite as natural to say, " The Canaanites 
were then in the land as they still are," as to say, " The 
Canaanites were then in the land, but are there no 
longer." 

The proof already given of the unity and continuity of 
this chapter renders it unnecessary to examine in detail 
Knobel's enlargement of P or Schrader's subdivision of 
J. These are of interest only as showing the facility 
with which documents can be subdivided or the lines of 
partition changed. 

abram's rescue of lot (ch. xrv.) 

Astruc set the example of referring ch. xiv. to another 
source than the principal documents of Genesis, as he 
did every passage which concerned foreign tribes or 
nations. The critics complain that it is disconnected 
and out of harmony with what precedes and follows 
in its representation of Abram, but without good rea- 
son. The dignity of his position corresponds with the 
statements elsewhere made. The greatness of Abram's 
retinue is remarked (xii. 5, 16 ; xiii. G, 7). The children 
of Heth treat him as a mighty prince or a prince of God 
(xxiii. 6). The king of the Philistines and the general 



196 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

of his army court his alliance (xxi. 22 sqq.). It is in per- 
fect accord with this that he is here said to have mus- 
tered three hundred and eighteen trained men (ver. 14 ; 
cf. xxxiii. 1) ; that he was confederate with native princes 
(ver. 13) ; that as the head of a clan, in contrast with 
other tribes or nations, he is called Abram the Hebrew 
(ver. 13 ; cf. 1 Sam. xiii. 3, 7 ; xiv. 21). This appellation 
is justified by the situation and does not require Ewald's 
assumption that the narrative is from a Canaanitish orig- 
inal. His generous regard for Lot (ver. 14), his magna- 
nimity and disinterestedness (vs. 21-24), agree with xiii. 
8, 9. His life had been peaceful hitherto, but he adapts 
himself to this new emergency. The land had been 
given him with new emphasis in all its length and 
breadth (xiii. 15, 17), and it is quite in place that he 
should act as its champion and defender from invasion 
and pillage. The exhortation and the military emblem 
(xv. 1) seem to be suggested by his late conflict. 

The critics find their chief perplexity, however, in the 
fact that this chapter is related to all the documents, and 
cannot be brought into harmony with any one. It has 
the diffuseness and particularity of P in vs. 8, 9, the P 
words ffiW goods (vs. 11, 12, 16, 21), t»&? soul for per- 
sons (ver. 21), in^a i'tV" born in the house (ver. 14), as 
xvii. 12, 13, 23, 27 ; Lev. xxii. 11 ; calls Lot Abram's 
brother's son (ver. 12), as xi. 27, 31 ; xii. 5. At the same 
time it has the J words mn* 1 Jehovah (ver 22), m&nfpb to 
meet (ver. 17), *pn3 blessed (vs. 19, 20); brings Abram 
into connection with Salem or Jerusalem, the future site 
of the temple, to whose priest he pays tithes (vs. 18-20), 
(which is held to be indicative of J, who is reputed to be- 
long to Judah) ; calls Lot Abram's brother (ver. 14), 
as xiii. 8 ; speaks of him as dwelling in Sodom (ver. 12), 
as xiii. 12b; and Abram as dwelling by the oaks of 
Mamre (ver. 13), as xiii. 18 ; connects Admah and Zeboiim 



abram's rescue of lot (CH. XIV.) 197 

with Sodom and Gomorrah (vs. 2, 8), as x. 19, and Zoar, 
as xix. 23, while yet Sodom and Gomorrah are accorded 
the precedence (vs. 10, 11), and particularly Sodom (vs. 
17, 21, 22), as xiii. 10 ; xviii. 20, 26 ; ch. xix. With all 
this it has several words which occur nowhere else in the 
Pentateuch ; )i*bs btf God Most High (vs. 18-20, 22) ; jag 
to deliver (ver. 20) ; T©$n to make rich (ver. 23) ; or in 
the Old Testament plKJ D^QE H2p possessor of heaven 
and earth (vs. 19, 22) ; rrnn ibjga confederate (ver. 13) ; 
•pH trained (ver. 14) ; p^T} drew out said of men (ver. 14) ; 
also several antique or peculiar names of places : Bela 
for Zoar (vs. 2, 8), vale of Siddim (vs. 3, 8, 10), Ashte- 
roth-karnaim (ver. 5), Zuzim, probably for Zamzummim 
(ver. 5), El Paran (ver. 6), En-mishpat for Kadesh (ver. 
7), Hazazon-tamar for Engedi (ver. 7), vale of Shaveh for 
the King's Yale (ver. 17), Salem for Jerusalem (ver. 18). 
Such unusual words and names are thought to point to 
E ; so the alliance with native princes (ver. 13), as xxi. 
32, and the warlike achievement (ver. 15), as xlviii. 22, as 
well as the E words ^"TPbS nothing for me (ver. 24), the 
Amorite instead of Canaanite (vs. 7, 13), as Num. xxi. 
21 ; Josh. xxiv. 8, 12 ; likewise t^bs escaped (ver. 13), and 
Titt rebelled (ver. 4), which Schrader reckons peculiar to 
E, but Dillmann does not. 

Noldeke undertakes to prove the narrative to be alto- 
gether fictitious, and several of the names to be the in- 
vention of the writer. He adopts the Rabbinical conceit 
that Bera, king of Sodom, is from 3H evil ; and Birsha, 
king of Gomorrah, from 2?l£") wickedness ; and he appears 
to approve the Samaritan conversion of Shemeber, king 
of Zeboiim, into Shemebed, whose name has perished, 
though he shrinks from resolving Shinab, king of Admah, 
with the Jerusalem Targum into ntf fcWfa father-hater. 
The object of the story he conceives to be to glorify 
Abram as a conqueror. From the allusions to it in Ps. 



198 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

Ixxvi. 3, E. Y. 2 (Salem), ex. (Melchizedek), Hos. xi. 8 («j|^p 
deliver, Adniah, Zeboiim), he infers that it could not have 
been written later than 800 B.C. Kuenen (" Hexateuch," 
p. 324) also makes it absolutely unhistorical, intended in 
vs. 18-20 " to glorify the priesthood of Jerusalem and to 
justify their claiming tithes," and borrowed by the final 
redactor of the Pentateuch from " a postexilian version 
of Abram's life, a midrash." Monumental evidence has, 
however, established the historical character of the names 
Arioch, Ellasar, Chedorlaomer, 1 and, perhaps, Amraphel, 2 
as well as of invasions and conquests stretching westward 
at that early date. To evade this, E. Meyer propounded 
the extraordinary hypothesis that a writer in the exile 
became acquainted with the names of these ancient 
kings, and invented this story which brought Abram 
into contact with them. 

It is thus settled beyond reasonable contradiction that 
this chapter stands on historic ground. Its postexilic 
origin is accordingly impossible. This is an effectual 
bar to "Wellhausen's proposed solution of its eclectic rela- 
tion to the several documents, and especially its use of 
the diction of P, by assuming that it must have been 
produced not by J, E, or P, but by a redactor subse- 
quent to them all ; and in his view P is itself postexilic. 
The definiteness and precision of its statements, coupled 
with the unusual number of ancient names requiring ex- 
planation, which are here grouped together, compel to 
the assumption that this belongs to a very early date. 
Dillmann attributes it to E, the explanatory glosses hav- 
ing been added by a later hand. This obliges him to 
explain away the marks of P and J as interpolations, or 
as of no significance, and to reject vs. 17-20 as no part 
of the original narrative. Knobel refers it to an ancient 

1 Schrader : Keilinscliriften und das Alte Testament. 
3 Hommel, quoted by Delitzscli. 



abram's rescue of lot (CH. XIV.) 199 

source, of which J availed himself, and to which he added 
the necessary explanations by introducing modern names 
where the older ones had become unintelligible. To this 
Delitzsch gives his assent. This accounts for the ar- 
chaic names and expressions and for the marks of J, which 
the chapter contains ; but it leaves without explanation 
the marks of P, which, though emphasized elsewhere, must 
here be treated as of no account or set aside as later ad- 
ditions to the text. The natural and obvious explanation 
of the whole matter, to which the critics determinedly shut 
their eyes, is that these alleged criteria of distinct docu- 
ments are not such, after all, but are freely used as occa- 
sion requires by one and the same writer, and in the 
same piece of composition. 

Dillmann rejects for no other reason than that they 
contravene his hypothesis vs. 17-20, Jehovah in ver. 
22, and " Admah and Zeboiim " in x. 19, as later addi- 
tions to the text, and claims that the allusions to ch. xiii. 
imply acquaintance with that chapter, 1 but not that ch. 
xiv. is by the same author ; whereas the use of the 
phrase " the vale of Siddim " (vs,^ 3, 8, 10), instead of 
" the plain of Jordan," as xiii. 10, 11, shows them to be 
by different writers. But the vale of Siddim is not iden- 
tical with the plain of the Jordan ; it is (ver. 3) expressly 
declared to be only that part of it which was subse- 
quently covered by the " Salt Sea," that is, the Dead 
Sea. The expression used is different because the object 
to be denoted was different. No inference can be drawn 
from it, consequently, against the presumption of iden- 
tity of authorship created by the connection of the nar- 
rative, the agreement as to the situation and the charac- 

1 As he holds that E is older than J, E could not in his opinion have 
referred to J. He is obliged, therefore, to assume that the allusions to 
ch. xiii. were no part of ch. xiv. originally, but are later additions to 
its text. 



200 THE GENERATION'S OF TERAH 

ter of Abram, the correspondence of diction, and the 
direct allusions. 

The P words are waived aside in a similar manner. 
" Born in his house " (ver. 14) is pronounced a later ad- 
dition. Such fulness of detail in any but ritual and legal 
matters is said not to accord with P's usage elsewhere, 
and the style of the chapter is not his ; which simply 
means that the critics have arbitrarily partitioned the 
text of the Pentateuch between what is ritual and legal 
on the one hand and narrative on the other, as though 
no writer could produce more than one species of com- 
position, and the diversity of style due to a difference of 
matter were proof of distinct authors. 1M*| goods, and 
TJJB3 soul, in the sense of " person," which are elsewhere 
declared to be such evident marks of P as to stamp a 
verse as his, though in a J connection, are here passed 
over lightly, as though they had no such significance. 
Thus Delitzsch says that " 1IW1 is no specific criterion ; 
it is found in xv. 14, a promise recorded by J or E (Dill- 
mann says K), and at any rate not by P, and it expresses 
an idea for which th^ Biblical language has no other 

lOC & ° 

word." And Dillmann says : " One could hardly help 
using 12JBD for persons of both sexes, free and slave." If, 
then, these are the proper words and the only words to 
express a given meaning, such as any ordinary speaker 
or writer might upon occasion have to employ, how can 
they possibly be classed as characteristic of one docu- 
ment rather than another? And if not here, neither 
can they be elsewhere. But it is said that ver. 13 says 
" the oaks of Mamre," as xiii. 18 ; xviii. 1 ; while P inva- 
riably says simply, " Mamre." So he does (xxiii. 17, 19 ; 
xxv. 9 ; xlix. 30; 1. 13) when speaking, not of the residence 
of Abram, but of the location of the cave of Machpelah 
" before Mamre," and (xxxv. 27) when speaking of Jacob's 
coming "to Mamre, to Kiriath-arba (the same is He- 



ABEAM' S RESCUE OF LOT (CH. XIV.) 201 

bron), where Abraham and Isaac sojourned." The exact 
spot where Abram dwelt was " by the oaks of Mamre ; " 
but when the district so named is referred to in general, 
as a matter of course the oaks are not spoken of. This 
surely is no indication of different writers. 

In recording this very significant event in the life of 
the great patriarch the writer has taken pains to preserve 
the names of localities, and, as it would appear, to some 
extent, the use of terms as they were at the time referred 
to, introducing in a supplementary way the more modern 
names by which they had been superseded, or some ex- 
planatory phrase when necessary for the sake of clear- 
ness, as vs. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 15, 17. In one instance he uses 
a name current in his own time proleptically, perhaps for 
the reason that no other expressed his meaning so exactly. 
Thus he says (vs. 5-7) that the invaders smote the Be- 
phaim, and Zuzim, and Emim, and Horites, and Amorites, 
and " the country of the Amalekites." His meaning is here 
carefully guarded by the altered form of expression. They 
smote not the Amalekites, who derived their name from 
the grandson of Esau (xxxvi. 12), and accordingly were 
not in existence in the time of Abram, but the region 
subsequently occupied by them. 

At first sight it might appear as though " Dan " (ver. 
14) was to be similarly explained. It is natural to think 
of the Dan so frequently mentioned in the later Script- 
ures, which first received this name after the occupation 
of Canaan (Judg. xviii. 29 ; Josh. xix. 47), having pre- 
viously been called Laish. And on this ground it has 
been urged that this could not have been written by Mo- 
ses. But — 

1. It seems extremely improbable that the analogy of 
the entire chapter, which on this interpretation would re- 
quire " Laish, the same is Dan," should be violated in 
this one instance without any intimation of it, the origi- 



202 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

nal name being discarded, and the recent one not added 
to it by way of explanation, but substituted for it. It is 
more in keeping with the general tenor of the chapter to 
suppose that it was not the Dan-Laish of later times, 
which was intended, but a place so called in the time of 
Abram, perhaps named from this very event, in which 
God maintained the righteous cause of his servant (Dan 
= judge ; see xv. 14), and possibly perpetuated in the 
Dan-jaan of 2 Sam. xxiv. 6, cf. also Deut. xxxiv. 1. 

2. If the Dan of later times is here meant, the strong 
probability is that the older name was in the original 
text, and in the course of transcription one more familiar 
was substituted for it. The proofs of Mosaic authorship 
are too numerous and strong to be outweighed by a triv- 
ialty like this. Critics whose hypothesis requires the 
assumption of textual changes of the most serious nature 
cannot consistently deny that there may be occasion for 
a slight correction here. 



PROMISE AND COVENANT OF JEHOVAH (CH. XV.) 

Most of the earlier critics refer the whole of this chap- 
ter to J. Knobel attributed both ch. xiv. and xv. to what 
he called the Kriegsbuch, or Book of Wars, one of the 
sources from which he imagined that J drew his materials. 
Wellhausen, and others since, undertake the partition of 
the chapter, and base it on certain alleged incongruities 
which have no real existence. It is charged that — 

1. There is a discrepancy in respect to time. Accord- 
ing to ver. 5, it is in the night and the stars are visible ; 
but vs. 7-11 imply that it is in the day ; in ver. 12a, the 
sun is setting, and ver. 17, it has gone down. 

But it is not easy to see how any one can imagine a 
difficulty here. The transaction described required time. 
The vision (ver. 1) occurred in the night or in the early 



THE COVENANT OF JEHOVAH (CH. XV.) 203 

morning, when the stars still appeared in the sky (ver. 5). 
A fresh communication was made to Abram (vs. 7 sqq.), 
which, whether it followed the preceding immediately or 
after an interval, contained directions that could only be 
executed in the daytime. Five animals were to be taken 
and slain, properly prepared and divided, and the parts 
suitably adjusted. This would occupy a portion of the 
day, and during the remainder of it he guarded the pieces 
from the birds of prey. Then came sunset with the pro- 
phetic disclosure (vs. 12-16), and finally darkness with 
the symbolic ratification of the covenant. The narrative 
is consistent throughout and develops regularly from 
first to last. 

2. A vision is announced in ver. 1, but it cannot pos- 
sibly be continued through the chapter. 

Knobel thinks that the vision does not begin till ver. 
12, and ends with ver. 16. This is plainly a mistake ; 
the communication in ver. 1 is expressly said to have 
been made in a vision. Whether all the communications 
in the chapter were similarly made, and only vs. 10, 11 
belong to Abram's ordinary state, or whether the vision 
is limited to vs. 1-6, as Wellhausen supposes, it may be 
difficult to determine, and it is of no account as nothing 
is dependent on the mode in which the revelation was 
given. 

3. Ver. 8 is inconsistent with ver. 6. In the latter 
Abram is said to have believed the Lord ; and yet he 
asks in the former for a visible token of the truth of 
God's word. 

But this request does not indicate doubt or distrust, 
but rather a desire for a more complete assurance and a 
fresh confirmation of his faith in the fulfilment of prom- 
ises so far transcending all natural expectation. 

On the grounds above stated Wellhausen assigns vs. 
1-6 to E ; and vs. 7-12, 17, 18, to J, ver. 7 having been 



204 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

modified, a clause inserted in ver. 12, and vs. 13-16 be- 
ing no part of the original text, but added in the first in- 
stance after vs. 17, 18, and then transposed to its present 
position ; vs. 19-21 being also a later addition. He 
urges that the clause, " a deep sleep fell upon Abram," 
does not belong to ver. 12, for, though congruous to vs. 
13-16, it is not so to vs. 17, 18, a consideration which 
might have led him to see that those verses are in their 
proper place, and the only incongruity is one of his own 
creating. 

The revelation by vision (ver. 1) is, on critical princi- 
ples, referred to E (though HTTO vision, occurs besides in 
the Pentateuch only in Num. xxiv. 4, 16 J) ; and this is 
supposed to be confirmed by the naming of Eliezer (ver. 
2), whereas J does not give his name (xxiv. 2 sqq. — the 
identity of the persons being commonly assumed) ; also 
by the phrase, " after these things " (ver. 1), which occurs 
in E, xxii. 1 ; xl. 1 ; xlviii. 1, but also in J, xxii. 20, xxxix. 
7, and even in P, Josh. xxiv. 29, unless it is confessed that 
P is not alone in stating ages. The only escape from this 
dilemma is by the absurd division of Schrader, who in the 
verse last named assigns " and it came to pass after these 
things " to E, and all the rest to P. Jehovah occurs four 
times in the first six verses, though by critical rules E 
ought always to say Elohim, never Jehovah. It is neces- 
sary, therefore, to assume that R has changed those names. 
There are also some of P's expressions 15$ (not *pba J) ; 
D^te? "fl8 TJr of the Chaldees (ver. 7), ©3*1 goods (ver. 14), 
PQita nyta in a good old age (ver. 15 ; see xxv. 8), not to 
speak of the chronological statement, ver. 13. Hence it 
is again necessary to assume that the verses that contain 
them have been either altered or inserted by R, whose 
office it is to rectify whatever is at variance with the hy- 
pothesis. " Come forth out of thy bowels," DW3 (ver. 4), 
sounds like a variation upon "come forth out of thy 



THE COVENANT OF JEHOVAH (CH. XV.) 205 

loins." a phrase which P uses in two forms (xxxv. 11, 
tFSfyn ; xlvi. 26 ; Ex. i. 5, 5jt»), and he might easily be sup- 
posed to add a third. At any rate no phrase at all ap- 
proaching it is elsewhere referred to E ; xxy. 23 is as- 
signed to J. The animals (ver. 9) are precisely those 
admissible for sacrifice under the ritual law (P), and not 
dividing the birds accords with Lev. i. 17. " The word 
of Jehovah came" (vs. 1, 4) is a phrase familiar in the 
prophets, but occurring nowhere else in the Pentateuch ; 
it certainly cannot be claimed, therefore, as character- 
istic of E. The inhabitants of the land are called Amor- 
ites (ver. 16), while J calls them Canaanites and Periz- 
zites (xii. 6, xiii. 7) ; but if this is the mark of a different 
writer, how could B, who designates them as in ver. 16, 
have likewise written vs. 19-21 ? 

Dillmann in his 1st edition (Knobel's 3d) ascribed the 
entire chapter to B, who had introduced expressions of 
P as well as of J, and based his narrative partly on E, a 
combination which could not well be disposed of from 
the critical point of view in any other way. In his 2d 
edition (Knobel's 1th) he rids himself of most of the P 
elements by assigning vs. 7, 12-16, to E, and then gives 
vs. 3, 5, 6, to J, and vs. 1, 2, 4, 8, 9-11, 17, 18, to E, and 
vs. 19-21 either to E or E. By the portion given to J 
his partition has an advantage over that of TTellhausen. 
Abram's childlessness and the promise of offspring with- 
out naming the mother (vs. 3, 5) prepares the way for 
the affair of Hagar (ch. xvi.), in which E is supposed to 
have no share. And according to Ex. xxxii. 13, J, God 
had promised Abraham to multiply his seed as the stars 
of heaven. This emblem occurs three times in Genesis 
(xv. 5 ; xxii. 17 ; xxvi. 1). By common critical consent the 
last two are by B, who was posterior to J. On critical 
grounds, therefore, the reference could only be to xv. 5, 
so that this must have belonged to J and not to E. This 



206 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

partition is, however, impracticable, for it is at variance 
with the divine names ; it assigns vs. 17, 18, to E in spite 
of xxiv. 7, J, which directly refers to it ; it sunders ver. 
4 from ver. 3, to which it is the immediate response ; it 
connects ver. 8 with ver. 4, though they relate to mat- 
ters as distinct as the birth of his child and the posses- 
sion of Canaan. In order to link them together he al- 
ters the text of ver. 8 without the slightest authority from 
HStDTSI I shall inherit it, to ^Tlh"^ he shall be my heir, thus 
changing its subject entirely. But his own comment on 
ver. 18 refutes his emendation and with it his critical 
division of the chapter. Yer. 18 remarks expressly that 
by the transaction from ver. 9 onward God concluded a 
covenant with Abram in relation to the future possession 
of the land. This, then, is what the sign for which he 
asked in ver. 8 was to certify, and not that Abram's own 
child should be his heir. Ver. 8 cannot therefore con- 
nect with ver. 4, but relates to a different subject. Ac- 
cordingly it is not surprising that in his 3d edition 
(Knobel's 5th) Dillmann abandons his previous scheme, 
and after reviewing what others have attempted in the 
same line with no better success, pronounces it imprac- 
ticable to separate E and J in this chapter. He im- 
agines that J made use of a narrative of E, in drawing 
up this account of a covenant with Abram, which was 
subsequently modified by E, and enlarged by him or by 
others at a still later time. All this rather than confess, 
what this confusion of documents really shows, that the 
alleged criteria of J, E, and P are not marks of distinct 
writers, but are employed by one and the same writer as 
he has occasion. 

Budde undertook to make a partition in accordance 
with the divine names ; and regarding, as his predeces- 
sors had done, vs. 12-16, 19-21, as later additions, he 
gave to J vs. 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 6-11, 17, 18, and to E vs. 3a, 2b, 



THE COVENANT OF JEHOVAH (CH. XV.) 207 

5. He thus admits that " after these things " (ver. 1) is 
not a criterion of E, that Ur of the Chaldees is Abram's 
original home in J (ver. 7) as well as in P, that there is 
no contrariety between ver. 6 and ver. 8 ; but because of 
the imaginary conflict in time between ver. 17 and ver. 5 
he gives the latter to E in spite of Ex. xxxii. 13, and lie 
makes a singular medley of vs. 2, 3. Each verse is split 
in two, the first clause of ver. 2 is linked with the last of 
ver. 3, and the intervening clauses are referred in an in- 
verted order to a distinct document. 

Kautzsch and Socin follow Budde for the most part, 
but are not prepared to accept his juggling with vs. 1-3, 
which they refer to JE without attempting to indicate 
what belongs to each. Kittel tries to help the matter by 
giving ver. 2 to E and ver. 3 to J, but it is in defiance of 
Jehovah in ver. 2. So that there is no resource but to 
adopt the explanation of Dillmann in his first edition 
that the author himself interprets in ver. 3 the somewhat 
antiquated and obscure expressions of ver. 2. The repe- 
tition of the thought has not arisen from the blending: of 
two documents, but from the writer's desire to render an 
ancient and remarkable phrase here employed more in- 
telligible to his readers. 

Delitzsch very properly contends that vs. 12-16 cannot 
be an addition by E, because it is intimately related to 
vs. 9-11, of which it gives a symbolic explanation ; and 
it is besides preliminary to a proper uxiderstanding of the 
promise in ver. 18. Kittel also asserts the unity and 
continuity of vs. 7-18, but needlessly assumes that it 
originally stood in a different connection. 

The enumeration of ten nations in Canaan is peculiar 
to vs. 19-21, other passages naming seven, six, or fewer 
still. But as Delitzsch rightly maintains, this is no rea- 
son for disputing its originality here. 

There is, after all, no break in this chapter. Two dis- 



208 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

tinct promises are made in it ; but they are closely 
related, and are in fact interwoven throughout the patri- 
archal history. And the conspicuous failure of the 
critics to effect an analysis makes the evidence of its 
unity more signal and complete. Driver only ventures 
the vague remark : " Ch. xv. shows signs of composition ; 
but the criteria are indecisive, and no generally accepted 
analysis has been offered." It is plain enough that no 
partition of the chapter has been found possible. The 
signs of its composite character are hard to discover. 
Its lack of conformity to any one of the so-called docu- 
ments discredits those documents, not the unity of the 
chapter. 

BIRTH OF ISHMAEL (CH. XVI.) 

The motive by which the critics are influenced in 
giving a fraction of this chapter to P is thus frankly ac- 
knowledged by Dillmann, who says : " Inasmuch as the 
existence of Ishmael is presupposed by P in xvii. 18 sqq., 
he must previously have mentioned his birth." The con- 
sistency of the hypothesis demands it. And yet, though 
Ilgen (1798) had anticipated the division of the chapter 
now currently adopted, Tuch (1838) and Stahelin (1843) 
still gave the whole to J. In P, according to the former 
(p. lxiv.), " we only learn incidentally in xxi. 9 (which he 
gave to P, but recent critics to E), that Ishmael was the 
son of an Egyptian maid." And all that the latter can 
say ! is, " It is possible that P may have related some- 
thing about the barrenness of Sarah, about Hagar, and 
the birth of Ishmael, which was dropped because J's 
fuller narrative was put in its place." Hupf eld's anal- 
ysis, adopted from Ilgen, is now commonly followed, viz. : 

P xvi. 1 (?), 3, 15, 16 ; J, vs. 2, 4-14. 

The critics are puzzled as to the disposition to be made 

1 Kritische Untersucliungen, p. 46. 



BIRTH OF ISHMAEL (CH. XVI.) 209 

of ver. 1. Knobel and Dillmann (3d) give it to P ; 
Kautzsch follows Schrader in giving la to P, and lb to 
J ; Dillmann (1st and 2d) agrees with Wellhausen that 
the whole verse is J's ; Hupfeld seems uncertain. On 
the one hand it is urged that " Sarai, Abram's wife," 
" Abram her husband," "Hagar the Egyptian, her hand- 
maid " (ver. 3), needlessly repeat what is contained in 
ver. 1 ; and that these verses must, therefore, be from 
different sources. But, on the other hand, ver. 3 neces- 
sarily presupposes a previous mention of Hagar and of 
Sarai's childlessness, such as is found in ver. 1, and the 
identity of expressions favors sameness of authorship 
rather than the reverse, so that they must belong to- 
gether. Sarai's relation to Abram is not here mentioned 
for the first time in either document, as the critics divide 
them (P, xi. 31 ; xii. 5 ; J, xi. 29 ; xii. 11, 17). It is not 
stated, then, for the sake of acquainting the reader with 
a fact not before known. But it is reiterated and dwelt 
upon at this juncture, that it may be kept before the 
mind in order to a proper understanding of the situation. 
That Hagar was an handmaid of Sarai and an Egyptian 
is also important for the correct comprehension of the 
subsequent history. Hence it is not only repeated here 
but elsewhere in all the documents, as the critics regard 
them (J, xvi. 8; E, xxi. 9 ; P, xxv. 12). There is, accord- 
ingly, no escape from the admission of repetitions by the 
same writer but by the indefinite multiplication of doc- 
uments. The triple statement (xvi. 15, 16) that Hagar 
bare Ishmael is not due to some supposed diffuseness of 
style on the part of P, but emphasizes the fact that he 
was not Sarai's child. 

But if ver. 1 is accorded to P, because presupposed in 
ver. 3, then the narrative in J evidently lacks its begin- 
ning. It has no suitable introduction, and the references 
to Sarai's handmaid (ver. 2), and to Hagar (ver. 4), imply 
14 



210 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

that she had been spoken of before. Even splitting ver. 
1 between the documents will not mend the matter, for, 
as Kautzch admits, " By the reception of ver. la from P, 
the beginning of J's text is cut away." Wellhausen tries 
to evade this difficulty by assuming that xi. 30 originally 
stood at the beginning of this chapter, and belonged to 
P. But such a transposition is unwarranted, a statement 
of Sarai's childlessness, such as is found in xi. 30, is ap- 
propriate at the beginning of Abram's history, is needed 
to set the initial promise (xii. 2) in its proper light, is a 
necessary antecedent to xv. 2, and would not at any rate 
be a sufficient introduction to xvi. 3, where Hagar, her 
nationality, and her relation to Sarai are presupposed as 
already known. That xvi. la repeats xi. 30 is not sug- 
gestive of distinct documents any more than similar rep- 
etitions which abound elsewhere. 1 The trial of Abram's 
faith lay largely in this that notwithstanding the repeated 
promises of a numerous offspring, Sarai continued child- 
less. It was this which led to the expedient here de- 
tailed. It was proper, therefore, that this fact, though 
mentioned before, should be repeated in this place. 

And ver. 3 is not superfluous after ver. 2. Sarai 
first proposed the thing to Abram, and obtained his con- 
sent ; she then took measures to give effect to her scheme. 
By sundering these verses P is made to say that Sarai 

1 Compare 1 Sam. i. 3 and iv. 4 ; ii. 11, 18, iii. 1 ; ii. 21b, 26, iii. 19 ; 
xiii. 15b, xiv. 2b; xvi. 6-11, xvii. 13, 14; xvii. 2, 19; xxv. 1, 
xxviii. 3 ; 2 Sam. ii. 11, v. 5 ; iii. 21c, 22c; xiv. 24, 28; 1 Kin. xiv. 
21c, 31b ; xv. 16, 32 ; 2 Kin. i. 1, iii. 5 ; viii. 29, ix. 15, 16. These 
examples, as well as many of those previously given are adopted from an 
early publication of Ewald, his Komposition der Genesis, 1823, which is 
still worthy of attentive perusal, and in which he argues more wisely than 
in his later speculations. There is much truth in his suggestion that 
many of the critical objections to the unity of Genesis arise from apply- 
ing to it modern and occidental standards, and disregarding the usages 
of Hebrew historiography and that of the ancient Orient generally. 



BIRTH OF ISHMAEL (CH. XVI.) 211 

imposed her maid upon Abram without having spoken 
to him on the subject or gained his consent. Neither is 
verse 3 superfluous before verse 4. Sarai first surren- 
ders her maid to Abram, he then treats her as his wife. 
All proceeds in regular order as stated in the text. This 
is not overloaded, and there is nothing to suggest the 
intrusion of foreign matter in the narrative. 

The dates (vs. 3, 16) do not indicate another writer 
than the author of the rest of the chapter, except on the 
arbitrary assumption that the latter could not mention 
dates. Nor is there any significance in the circumstance 
that in ver. 15 it is the father, whereas in ver. 11 it is 
the mother, who gives name to the child. It has been 
alleged that the former is characteristic of P, the latter 
of J. But this rule does not hold. J makes Seth (iv. 
26), Judah (xxxviii. 3), and Moses (Ex. ii. 22), name their 
children. And of so little account is it to which parent 
this act is referred, that in iv. 25, 26, J, they alternate 
in successive verses, and in xxxv. 18, E, both occur in 
the same verse and in respect to the same child, while in 
xxv. 25, 26 ; xxix. 34 ; xxxviii. 29, 30 (all J), the naming 
is ascribed to neither, but spoken of indefinitely. 

The closing verses are, moreover, essential to the in- 
tegrity of the chapter. If they be sundered from it and 
given to P, the result will be that while J records Sarai's 
anxiety to have children by her maid, Abram's assent to 
her wishes, Hagar's pregnancy, and the angel's promise 
of a son, whom he names and characterizes, yet the point 
of the whole narrative is never reached. J makes no 
mention of the birth of Hagar's child. So that his story, 
as the critics furnish it to us, has neither beginning nor 
end. We are left to presume that it once had these 
missing parts, corresponding to what the critics have 
cut away, but that K removed them to make room for 
statements to the same effect from P. But this pre- 



212 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

sumption is only an inference from the hypothesis, and 
cannot consequently be adduced in support of the hy- 
pothesis, which, if it is to stand, must rest on other 
ground than conjecture. The natural inference from the 
facts, as they lie before us, is that the beginning and the 
ending, which we possess in the text, are the proper 
complements of the narrative, in which they are found, 
and are component and inseparable portions of it. 
There is not the shadow of a proof that other equivalents 
ever existed, for which those now existing were substi- 
tuted. And why E should have made such a substi- 
tution, as the critics allege, does not appear, especially 
as at other times he is represented to be so careful to 
preserve every scrap from his sources, as to insert what is 
deemed superfluous, interrupts the connection and adds 
nothing to what had been said before. 

Wellhausen, followed by Kautzsch, regards vs. 8-10, 
and Kuenen and Kittel, vs. 9, 10, as an insertion by R. 
If these verses were ejected a seeming conflict can be 
created with P (vs. 15, 16 ; xvii. 23 sqq.) and E (xxi. 
9 sqq.), and it can be made to appear as though Ishmael 
was born in the desert and not in Abram's house. Well- 
hausen urges the triple address of the angel to Hagar in 
proof of the composite character of the passage ; but 
even on his view of the matter R introduces the angel as 
speaking to her twice with nothing intervening. The 
formula of address is repeated thrice in order to mark 
the distinctness of the three communications which he 
makes to her. Dillmann very appropriately cites as par- 
allels xvii. 3, 9, 15 ; xxxv. 10, 11 ; and he argues that it 
would be a strange hearing of her affliction if the angel 
had left her helpless in the wilderness; also that the 
verses assigned to R are identical in style and diction 
with the context in which they stand. Besides the 
promise of numberless offspring, ver. 10 is linked with 



BIRTH OF ISHMAEL (CH. XVI.) 213 

xv. 5, of which it is a partial fulfilment. And the allega- 
tion that J differed from E and P as to the place of 
Ishmael's birth would be improbable in itself, even on 
the divisive hypothesis, unless sustained by positive 
statements, which are not pretended in the present in- 
stance. It is, moreover, expressly contradicted by xxv. 
6 J (Dillmann, 1st and 2d), though referred to E on 
frivolous grounds in Dillmann 3d ; if Abram sent Ish- 
mael away, his mother did not finally leave Abram's 
house before Ishmael's birth. 

The flight of Hagar in this chapter has been said to 
be only a variant of her dismissal (ch. xxi.), and both but 
legends based on the signification of her name (ijn per- 
haps = flight ; cf. hegira), which are altogether unfounded 
assumptions. 

MABKS OF'P 

The following are noted by Dillmann as marks of P : 
1. Exact statements of time, viz. : Abram ten years in 
Canaan (ver. 3) ; eighty-six years old (ver. 16). But — 

a. Such statements are not confined to P, as the crit- 
ics themselves divide the documents. Thus J, periods 
of seven and forty days in the flood (vii. 4, 10, 12 ; 
viii. 6, 10, 12) ; four hundred years' affliction (xv. 13 ; 
Del., Kit.) ; forty years in the wilderness (Num. xiv. 33, 
xxxii. 13). E, twelve years' service, thirteenth year rebel- 
lion, fourteenth year invasion (xiv. 4, 5, Dill.) ; Jacob 
serving twice seven years (xxix. 20, 30) ; twenty years of 
service, fourteen and six (xxxi. 38, 41) ; Joseph seven- 
teen years old (xxxvii. 2) ; at the end of two years (xli. 1) 
the same phrase as xvi. 3 ; seven years of plenty, 
seven of famine (xli. 29, 30, 47, 48, 53, 54) ; two years 
and five (xiv. 6, 11) ; Joseph, one hundred and ten years 
old (1. 22, 26) ; Caleb forty years old at sending of spies, 



214 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

eighty-five years old forty-five years later (Josh. xiv. 7, 
10) ; Joshua one hundred and ten years old (xxiv. 29). 

b. This repeated mention of ages and of definite 
periods of time in passages attributed to JE shows that 
these cannot be made a criterion of P ; and that they 
afford no justification for severing verses in which they 
occur from their proper connection on the plea that they 
are thereby proved to be insertions from P. Such pas- 
sages as xii. 4 ; xvi. 3, 16 ; xxv. 20 ; xli. 46 ; xlvii. 28, must 
accordingly be held to belong to the context in which 
they are found, and from which they are sundered by 
the arbitrary test which has now been shown to be in- 
valid. It is contended that these verses form part of a 
chronological scheme traceable throughout the Penta- 
teuch, all the parts of which must of necessity be as- 
signed to the same writer. This is readily admitted; 
but the conclusion to be drawn from it is the reverse of 
that deduced by the critics. It is not that these pas- 
sages are to be rent from the context to which they 
naturally and properly belong, and attributed to P ; but 
that the sections in which they are found have a common 
author with all those other sections in which the same 
scheme appears. And as this scheme runs through P, J, 
and E sections alike, it binds all indissolubly together as 
the product of one mind. 

2. npb took, 3. !»;> dwelt, and 4. ■JJ53 fna land of 
Canaan (ver. 3) are not peculiar to P, as was shown under 
ch. xii. 5, Nos. 1 and 4 ; ch. xiii., Marks of P, No. 3. 

5. TW$ ivife, applied to a concubine, is adduced by 
Dillmann as indicative of P, with a reference in his 1st 
edition to xxv. 1, in which Keturah is so called, and 
which is there referred to P, but in both his subsequent 
editions to E. In xxx. 4a, 9b, the same term is applied to 
Bilhah and Zilpah ; Dillmann says that these clauses 
" could possibly have been originally derived " from P. 



BIRTH OF ISHMAEL (OH. XVI.) 215 

But if so they are entirely isolated in a JE context. On 
such a showing the proof that this is characteristic of P 
is rather meagre. 

It will be observed that of the words said to be indic- 
ative of P in the scraps attributed to him in eh. xii.-xvi. 
not one occurs in any preceding P section, and but one 
occurs exclusively in P, viz., " cities of the plain," which is 
found in but two places and each time in a verse rent 
from its proper connection. 

MARKS OF J 

The following are said to be indications of J : 

1. The angel (ver. 7 sqq.). 

There are two reasons why " angel " does not occur in 
P. a. This is used as a criterion in determining the doc- 
uments. The presence of this word in an Elohim pas- 
sage is of itself held to indicate that it belongs not to P 
but to E. b. The bulk of the history is divided between 
J and E, and only such a residuum assigned to P as 
affords no occasion for an angel to appear. 

2. The notion in ver. 13 that it was dangerous to see 
God. But— 

a. This is based on a wrong interpretation of the 
verse. Hagar does not speak of her seeing God, but of 
his seeing her ; not of her continuing to live after this 
divine vision, but of the ever-living One who had watched 
over her in her distress. It stands in no relation, there- 
fore, to the truth taught in Ex. xxxiii. 20, " No man shall 
see me and live." 

b. Even if this verse had the meaning attributed to it, 
the absence of this idea from sections ascribed to P is 
as readily explained as its absence from other J sections 
in which God appears to men or speaks with them with- 
out allusion being made to danger thus incurred. 



216 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

3. The unfavorable representation of Hagar and Ish- 
mael. That this is found in J and not in P is simply the 
result of the partition. Nothing is conceded to P but 
the bare statement of Hagar's union with Abram and 
Ishmael's birth. Everything indicative of character is 
assigned to J or E. There is no variant representation 
in P. Abram's affection for Ishmael (xvii. 18 P) agrees 
with xxi. 11 E. 

4. The etymologies in vs. 11, 13, 14. 

But the like are found in P xvii. 5, 17, 19, 20. 

5. The difference between ver. 11 and 15 in respect to 
the person naming the child. 

It has already been shown (p. 211) that this affords no 
criterion for distinguishing different documents. 

6. m!T Jehovah ; already explained, see page 151. 

7. »3-nan behold now (ver. 2) ; see ch. xii. 10-20, Marks 
of J, No. 4." 

8. bipb Wi» hearkened to the voice (ver. 2), occurs in 
but two passages besides in J (Gen. iii. 17 ; Ex. iv. 8, 9). 
It is found likewise in E (Ex. iii. 18 ; xv. 26 ; xviii. 24). 
Commonly this verb has a different construction in J, as 
it has in P. 

9. ^£2 restrained (ver. 2), occurs but once besides in 
the Pentateuch in a similar connection (xx. 18), which 
the critics refer to B. The word is found three times in 
P (Num. xvii. 13, 15, E. V., xvi. 48, 50 ; xxv. 8), but, 
nowhere else in J. 

10. ns^Sj? TX2*\T\ I will greatly multiply (ver. 10), and 
but twice besides in the Hexateuch (iii. 16 J, and xxii. 
17 R, who according to Dillmann has made a free addi- 
tion of his own). In Ex. xxxii. 13 J, n3*i&5 is without the 
infinitive, though based upon Gen. xxii. 16, 17. How J 
could quote R, who by the hypothesis was subsequent to 
his time, it is not easy to say. But if J uses this com- 
bination in two places, and failed to employ it when 



COVENANT SEALED BY ABRAHAM (CH. XVII.) 217 

there was such an obvious reason for his doing so, what 
is there surprising in its absence from P, who, moreover, 
does use the infinitive absolute with the finite verb in 
other cases ? e.g. Ex. xxxi. 14, 15 ; Lev. vii. 24 ; x. 18 ; xx. 
2, 27 ; xxiv. 16, 17 ; xxvii. 29 ; Num. xv. 35 ; xxvi. 65 ; 
xxxv. 16-18, 21, 31. 

11. ZTCQ ^DD? tfb shall not be numbered for multitude 
(ver. 10). This phrase occurs but once besides in the 
Hexateuch (xxxii. 13, E. V., 12). 

12. ibltf it may be (ver. 2), besides in J (xviii. 24, 28, 
29, 32;" xxiv. 5, 39; Ex. xxxii. 30; Num. xxii. 33 ; Josh, 
ix. 7) ; in E (Gen. xxvii. 12 ; xxxii. 21, E. Y. ver. 20 ; 
Num. xxii. 6, 11 ; xxiii. 27 ; Josh. xiv. 12). It would not 
be surprising if this word did not chance to occur in the 
very limited amount of narrative accorded to P ; still it 
is found in Josh. xxii. 24, which Hollenberg and Well- 
hausen refer to that document. 



COVENANT SEALED BY ABEAHAM (CH. XVII.) 

This chapter cannot be sundered from what precedes 
and follows as an extract from an entirely independent 
document, as is done by the critics, who assign it to P. 
It is most intimately related to the whole narrative of 
which it is a part. Its explicit allusion to antecedent 
events obliges the critics to link it with statements of 
their occurrence, and thus by means of scattered and 
disjointed sentences to make out forP a show of continu- 
ity. With how little reason and success this is done, we 
have already seen. But even if the analysis which they 
propose were better supported, it does not meet the case. 
It is not sufficient that there should be a bald mention 
of Abram's arrival in Canaan and of the birth of Ishmael. 
The significance of these facts in the life of Abram, and 
the entire course of training to which he had been sub- 



218 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAII 

jected, as this is set forth in the whole antecedent nar- 
rative, are necessary preliminaries to this chapter. Its 
form cannot be accounted for nor its contents be under- 
stood without it. 

The one leading idea in the life of Abram is the trial 
of his faith, that it might be perfected and exhibited, 
and that he might become the father of the faithful. 
Jehovah bade him leave his country and his father's 
house, promising to give him possession of a land and to 
make of him a great nation ; and this though the land 
was already occupied by Canaanites and his wife was 
childless. His faith was soon tried by a grievous famine 
which obliged him to leave the land and go down to 
Egypt, where a new trial awaited him in the peril of los- 
ing Sarai. She was rescued by divine interference and 
he was restored to Canaan enriched, but the promised 
seed was not born. In the long waiting he began to ap- 
prehend that his steward, Eliezer, would be his heir. 
But the promise was made more definite that he should 
have a child of his own body, not merely a son by adop- 
tion, and that his offspring should be as numerous as the 
stars. And to confirm his faith in his future possession 
of the land, Jehovah entered into a formal covenant with 
him, sealing the engagement by a visible symbol of the 
divine presence. Ten weary years had worn away, and 
still Sarai had no child. At her suggestion he took 
Hagar, thinking thus to obtain the promised son. Ish- 
mael was born and had reached his thirteenth year when 
the promise was made more definite still, and the an- 
nouncement was given that his long-deferred hope was 
now to be fulfilled. Not his handmaid but his wife, not 
Hagar but Sarai, should be the mother of the promised 
seed. The covenant, which had already been ratified on 
one side, must now be ratified on the other. Abraham 
is required to signify his faith in the divine announce- 



COVENANT SEALED BY ABRAHAM (CH. XVII.) 219 

merit, and to bind himself and his household in covenant 
with God by the seal of circumcision, and this in antici- 
pation of Isaac's birth. This final ratification of the 
covenant is followed by Jehovah's condescending to the 
usages of men, and celebrating the completion of this 
transaction by coming in human form to feast with 
Abraham at the door of his tent, where the promise is 
repeated in the hearing of Sarah. Jehovah also makes 
a confidential communication of his purpose to Abraham, 
and admits him on the footing of this newly confirmed 
friendship to the intimacy of persistent and prevalent 
intercession. 

If ever a narrative bore in itself the evidence of invio- 
lable unity, in which every part fits precisely in its place 
in the plan of the whole, and is indissolubly linked with 
every other, all breathing one spirit, contributing to one 
end, working out one common design, to which each and 
every item is indispensable, and defying all attempts to 
rend it asunder, this is the case with the life of Abraham 
as recorded in the book of Genesis. Though it is told 
with a charming simplicity and apparent artlessness, 
the divine purpose rules in the whole, and rivets all 
together with hooks of steel which no critical art can 
sever. 

We are asked to believe that all this close correspond- 
ence and evident adjustment of the several parts is but 
the result of a lucky accident. Two, or rather three, 
documents, written quite independently of each other, 
with entirely distinct aims and frequently at variance in 
their details, have happened to be so constructed that 
extracts taken from them could be dovetailed together 
and yield all the evidence of a consistently constructed, 
regularly developing scheme, which reaches its most 
pathetic climax when the faithful patriarch proves his 
obedience in the last and sharpest trial of all by taking 



220 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

the knife to slay his son, and the approving voice from 
heaven stays his hand, and confirms the promises previ- 
ously given by the unheard-of solemnity of the oath of 
Jehovah swearing by himself. 

Is it a supposable thing that ch. xvii. has been ex- 
tracted from a document, which, as the critics tell us, 
knows nothing of any previous divine communication 
made to Abraham? which, on the contrary, represents 
him as having migrated to Canaan of his own motion, 
and from no divine impulse, no promises having been 
made to him, and no measures taken to discipline his 
faith ? So viewed it no longer has the emphasis of being 
preceded by a series of promises of growing definiteness 
and clearness, which gradually lead up to it, but is abso- 
lutely not only the first, but the only revelation which 
God makes to Abraham his whole life long. The chap- 
ter is then an enigma, and its most significant features 
lose their point. 

Why is it stated (ver. 1) that Abram was ninety-nine 
years old ? In itself that is an altogether unimportant 
detail. And so are the facts which P is supposed to 
have registered (xii. 5), that Abram was seventy-five years 
old when he departed out of Haran, and (xvi. 16) that 
he was eighty-six years old when Ishmael was born, 
provided all the intervening years were, as the critics 
suppose them to have been in this document, absolutely 
blank, with no promise from God, no expectancy, no 
event of any kind — mere empty yearsjlevoid of all signif- 
icance. But if these have been years of anxious waiting 
for the fulfilment of a promise yet unaccomplished, of 
hope long deferred yet not abandoned, and the affair of 
Hagar was the rash expedient of despondency from long 
delay, then we see the significance of these long terms of 
years. They are no longer barren, but play an impor- 
tant part in the discipline of Abram, and the develop- 



COVENANT SEALED BY ABRAHAM (CH. XVII.) 221 

ment of his character. They are full of meaning in the 
history of his life, which would not stand out before us 
in the light that it does if they had not been recorded. 

And why does Jehovah reveal himself (ver. 1) as God 
Almighty ? The critics rob this of all its significance by 
making it merely the customary patriarchal denomina- 
tion of the Most High. But why does this name appear 
here for the first time ? And why in the subsequent em- 
ployment of it in Genesis is there an almost invariable 
reference to this occasion and to the promises here 
made ? Why this appeal to the divine omnipotence, en- 
hancing the sense of the magnitude of the promise, and 
of the might involved in bringing it to pass ? Consid- 
ered as the first utterance of the promise to Abram, the 
simple word of the Most High should be sufficient to 
awaken faith in a believing soul, as in xii. 1-4. And it 
would seem superfluous to precede it by an affirmation 
of his almighty power. But if the promise had been 
made long years before, and repeated from time to time, 
while yet no sign of its accomplishment appeared, and 
every natural prospect had vanished, and there was 
danger that faith so long vainly expectant might weaken 
or utterly die, unless attention was explicitly directed to 
the limitless strength of him by whom the promise was 
given, then there was a gracious and most important end 
to be answered by this form of the divine communica- 
tion, and we can see why Jehovah's first word to Abram 
on this occasion should be, " I am God Almighty." 

And why is the divine name "Elohim," (God), thence- 
forward used throughout the chapter ? The critics strip 
this of all its meaning by referring it to the habit of a 
writer, who with unvarying uniformity made use of 
Elohim as far as Ex. vi. 2, while chs. xii.-xvi., with 
their constant use of " Jehovah " (Lord), are traced to a 
different source. But this brings them into collision 



222 THE GENERATION'S OF TERAH 

with the first verse of ch. xvii., where it is said that 
"Jehovah appeared to Abram." Here they aver that E 
has meddled with the text, and substituted " Jehovah '' 
for " Elohim," which upon their hypothesis this writer 
must have said. And this in spite of the identity of the 
expression with xii. 7 and xviii. 1, which vouch for its 
originality in xvii. 1 ; and that there is no variant in 
MSS. or versions to afford even a seeming pretext for 
this purely conjectural change of text. Meanwhile the 
real and obvious significance of the name Elohim in this 
connection is overlooked, by which the reader is re- 
minded throughout the interview of the character in 
which the Lokd here announced himself. Nature has 
failed and is incompetent. But Jehovah the God of 
Abram is also Elohim, the omnipotent Creator, pledging 
that which transcends the powers of nature. 

And why is there such iteration and reiteration in the 
promise of offspring to Abram (vs. 2-8), with such em- 
phatic expressions and such enlargement of its scope be- 
yond any preceding instance ? I " will multiply thee 
exceedingly" (ver. 2) ; "thou shalt be a father of many 
nations " (ver. 4), (not merely " a great nation," as xii. 2) ; 
and this emphasized (ver. 5) by a change of name from 
Abram to Abraham, " for a father of many nations have 
I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, 
and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come 
out of thee " (ver. 6) ; and " thee and thy seed after thee " 
is thrice repeated (vs. 7, 8). Here the critics see nothing 
but verbose diffuseness of the writer of this chapter, who 
is thus supposed to be distinguished from the author of 
ch. xii.-xvi. This is all that can be said, on the critical 
hypothesis that this is the first and only occasion on 
which this promise is made to Abram. But this is to 
miss the very point and meaning of the entire passage. 
By this emphatic reiteration God would reassure Abram 



COVENANT SEALED BY ABRAHAM (CH. XVII.) 223 

after the vain expectation of four and twenty weary years, 
lift him out of his despondency, and give him to under- 
stand that God had by no means forgotten his promise, 
but it should be most certainly fulfilled and on a most 
liberal scale. 

And why is this subject recurred to again (vs. 15, 16, 
19, 21), with explicit and repeated mention of Sarai as 
the mother of the promised child, and her name, too, 
changed in pledge of the event to Sarah, indicating that 
she was to be the mother of nations and that kings 
should be of her ? This is mere superfluous verbiage on 
the critical hypothesis. But it is full of meaning, if 
these words are uttered at the end of a long series of dis- 
appointments, by which Abram had been tempted to 
misconstrue the promise which had been made him, and 
to think first of Eliezer as his heir, and then of Hagar as 
the mother of his child. Now to put an end to all pos- 
sible misconception, and to remove all doubts arising 
from Sarah's advanced age and long-continued barren- 
ness, he is emphatically assured that she and no other 
shall be the mother of the promised seed. 

And why in the midst of these assurances does Abra- 
ham interject the petition (ver. 18), " O that Ishmael 
might live before thee " ? The critics see simply an ex- 
pression of concern for Ishmael. But the connection 
plainly shows that after the fruitless expectation of years 
Abraham had at length resigned himself to the belief 
that Ishmael was the only child that he could ever have, 
that Sarah's age and his own made any further hope im- 
possible, and all that he could reasonably anticipate was 
that his race should be perpetuated in Ishmael. Hence 
the emphasis with which the declaration is made, that 
not Ishmael, but Sarah's son Isaac, to be born at this 
set time in the next year, was the child contemplated in 
the promise. 



224 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

And why is circumcision introduced just here as the 
sign of God's covenant with Abraham ? The critics say 
that this covenant is here spoken of as a new thing, with 
the implication that the writer knew nothing of the pre- 
vious ratification of the covenant in xv. 17, 18. But this 
is a wholly unwarranted inference. The covenant was in 
the first instance ratified by the Lord as one of the con- 
tracting parties, a visible symbol of the divine presence 
passing between the pieces of the slaughtered animals. 
The time has now arrived for it to be ratified by Abra- 
ham as the other party to the covenant. And it is highly 
significant as a final test of the patriarch's faith, which 
had been so sorely tried before, that, antecedent to the 
accomplishment of the promise, he is required by this rite 
to signify his confidence in that for which he had so 
long and so vainly waited, and which now seemed to be 
counter to every natural expectation. 

The entire chapter in every part thus presupposes and 
is shaped by the antecedent experience of Abraham as 
recorded in chs. xii.-xvi, Severed from that its details 
have no significance, and merely reflect the extraordi- 
nary diffuseness and peculiar verbal preferences of the 
writer. And by sheer accident his fondness for numeri- 
cal statements, his employment of an antiquated title for 
the Supreme Being, his habit of using Elohim, his verbose 
diffuseness, and his disposition to dwell upon ritual mat- 
ters yield precisely the emphasis and the form needed to 
crown the whole series of promises of ever-growing ful- 
ness and precision, recorded by another writer, of whom 
P knew nothing, and whose views he did not share ; they 
are precisely what was needed in a last reassuring utter- 
ance to one, whom hope deferred had tempted to misin- 
terpret former declarations, or to grow despondent in re- 
spect to their fulfilment. It requires all the credulity of 
an antisupernatural critic to accept such a conclusion. 



COVENANT SEALED BY ABRAHAM (CH. XVII.) 225 

And further, cli. xviii. is just as unintelligible without 
ch. xvii., as the latter is apart from the chapters that pre- 
cede it. The transaction there recorded is without a par- 
allel in Scripture. It cannot be dismissed as only another 
instance of J's extraordinary anthropomorphisms, or put 
on a parallel with heathen myths. There is nothing like 
it elsewhere in J. Its remarkable and solitary character 
implies a very unusual occasion. The occasion was in 
fact absolutely unique. It was the final solemnization of 
the covenant transacted between God and Abraham as 
the father of the chosen race, and which had now been 
separately ratified by each of the parties. It was the 
starting-point of that scheme of grace by which a people 
was separated from the rest of the world to be for the 
time the depositary of God's truth and ordinances with 
a view to the ultimate salvation of the world. The near- 
est Scripture parallel is that in which Jehovah, who here 
covenanted with Abraham, renewed his covenant with his 
descendants, increased to a nation, at Mount Sinai (Ex. 
xxiv. 7, 8), which was followed by a sacred meal in which 
the representatives of the people ate and drank in the 
immediate presence of the God of Israel visibly mani- 
fested before them (vs. 9-11). So here Jehovah in hu- 
man form, came to the tent of Abraham, and ate of his 
food in token of the friendly intimacy established, as 
men who had covenanted were in the habit of eating to- 
gether in recognition of their oneness and their amicable 
relations (xxxi. 44, 46). Put this unique act of conde- 
scension in connection with the unique relation between 
God and man just consummated, and all is plain. Sun- 
der it with the critics from the immediately preceding- 
transaction, and the peculiarity of this visit to Abra- 
ham has no meaning and is without an object. The 
section next preceding in J is the story of Hagar, 
which suggests no explanation of this extraordinary 
15 



226 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

visit. 1 This is another instance from the critics' point of 
view of the combination of unrelated writings chancing 
to impart a profound significance to what in its original 
position was unmeaning, not to say grotesque. The evi- 
dently inseparable connection of this whole narrative sup- 
plies an argument of unity, which every one who reads it 
can appreciate, and which cannot be set aside by any 
amount of critical reasoning from microscopic details. 

STYLE OF p 

It is claimed by the critics that this chapter affords a 
striking illustration of the difference between P and J in 
the treatment of their respective themes. Thus Dr. 
Harper 2 says that P is "systematic. Just as the story 
of creation led up to the announcement of the Sabbath, 
and the story of the deluge culminated in a covenant 
with Noah and the law of bloodshed, so this section 
brings us to the covenant with Abraham and the institu- 
tion of circumcision." On the other hand, he affirms 3 
that J has " no particular system ; while the covenant 
between Yahweh and Abram is recorded, it is neither 
the climax nor the all-important fact of the narrative. 
It is connected with no institution ; and the promise 
made then is only one of many repeatedly made by 
Yahweh in his familiar intercourse with the patriarchs." 

But in actual fact there is as clear and abundant evi- 

1 Nor is it explained by the covenant in ch. xv,, which De Wette 
(Beitrage, ii. p. 77) affirms to be another form of the " myth " in ch. xvii. 
An interval of years is presupposed by ch. xvi., which must necessarily 
follow ch xv. and precede ch xviii. In ch xv. God gives to Abraham 
a pledge and assurance of his own engagement. It is only when, as the 
counterpart to this, Abram, in ch. xvii. , testifies his faith in God and adds 
his seal to the covenant that the way is prepared for the covenant 
meal in ch. xviii. 

2 Hebraica, v., 4, p. 244. 3 Ibid. , p. 247. 



COVENANT SEALED BY ABRAHAM (CH. XVII.) 227 

dence of " system " in that portion of the record which 
is attributed to J, as in that which is ascribed to P, as 
the most cursory examination is sufficient to show. 

The call of Abraham opens the third period of the 
world's history, for which, as it appears in J, the way 
was prepared, and the necessity demonstrated (if God's 
plan of grace was not to be suffered to fail), by the dis- 
astrous issue of both the preceding periods. Mankind 
descending from Adam became hopelessly corrupt, and 
was swept away by the deluge, from which righteous 
Noah was spared to be the head of a new race. Impiety 
prevailed again after the flood, and mankind were scat- 
tered over the face of the earth. But God's purpose of 
mercy was not abandoned. He selected Abraham to be 
the head of a chosen nation within which true religion 
might be perpetuated for the ultimate benefit of the 
world. We are thus brought by successive steps to the 
base on which the entire body of Old-Testament institu- 
tions repose. 

The antecedent history moves on toward this divine 
scheme of restriction in order to a safe and final diffusion 
in various distinct though related lines. Thus the suc- 
cessive stages of iniquity depicted by J converge upon 
this issue. The fall of our first parents ; the crime of 
Cain ; the ungodliness of his descendants — reaching its 
acme in Lamech ; the degeneracy of the pious race of 
Seth, induced by intermarriage with the race of Cain — 
the sons of God with the daughters of men — thus point- 
ing a lesson of which Genesis and the Pentateuch are 
full, viz., the criminality and the peril of the chosen seed 
allying themselves with the ungodly around them, the 
need and the duty of keeping themselves distinct. And 
after the world had been purged by the flood, the impious 
and arrogant combination at Babel, frustrated by imme- 
diate divine interference, revealed the continuance of the 



228 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

old leaven, and pointed the argument for some new expe- 
dient to prevent the extinction of all goodness. 

Add to this the gradual unfolding of the promise in J 
as set forth in each of these great periods. The seed 
of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head. Jehovah, 
the God of Shem, in whose tents Japheth shall dwell. 
Abraham and his seed a blessing to all the families of 
the earth. 

Also the regular dropping of side lines in J, and follow- 
ing the main line so as to converge upon Abraham, thus 
indicating the distinctness of the chosen race and at the 
same time their relationship to the whole body of man- 
kind. Thus the line of descent from Cain is traced and 
then laid aside in order to pursue that of Seth, which the 
critics tell us J must have continued down to Noah, 
though only fragments remain (iv. 25, 26 ; v. 29). Then 
the sons of Noah are traced and dropped in J's portion of 
ch. x., and only that of Shem continued in the direction 
of Terah. Then in Terah's family Lot's descendants are 
named (xix. 37, 38), and Nahor's (xxii. 20 sqq.), so in like 
manner the child of Hagar, and the children of Keturah, 
and the twin brother of Jacob. These are successively 
set aside, and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob left in sole 
possession of the promise. 

Again, the promises to the patriarchs in J are not idle 
repetitions of the same identical substance. They rise 
by regular gradations in respect to both the matters to 
which they relate — the promised land and the promised 
seed. Jehovah first (xii. 1), bade Abram go to a land 
that he would show him. After he reached Canaan it 
was made specific (ver. 7), " Unto thy seed will I give 
this land." After Lot had parted from him the terms 
are made universal ; " All the land that thou seest, north, 
south, east, and west, to thee will I give it and to thy 
seed forever " (xixi 14, 15). Then in Jehovah's covenant 



COVENANT SEALED BY ABRAHAM (CH. XVII.) 229 

with Abrara (ch. xv.), this promise reaches its climax. Its 
certainty is confirmed by the divine pledge symbolically 
given. The time of the gift is denned (vs. 13-16), and 
the limits of the territory are particularly specified (vs. 
18-21). The promise has become a formal engagement 
of the utmost solemnity ; what was at first vague and 
indefinite has attained to the utmost precision, both as to 
the extent of the grant and the time of its bestowment. 

Nevertheless it is true that the covenant transaction 
in ch. xv. is not in every point of view the climax. It 
rather marks an important stage in an advancing series 
traced by J. Jehovah spake to Abram before he left his 
father's house (xii. 1), as he had done to Noah (vii. 1), to 
Adam (iii. 17), and to Cain (iv. 6). But when Abram en- 
tered Canaan an advance was made upon all antecedent 
revelations. Jehovah appeared to him (xii. 7). A step 
was taken beyond this in ch. xv., when Jehovah ratified 
a covenant with Abram by a visible token of his pres- 
ence. Then, when Abram (ch. xvii.), 1 obedient to divine 
direction, ratified the covenant on his part by the seal of 
circumcision, the climax was reached (ch. xviii.) in the 
unequalled condescension of a manifestation unique in 
the whole Old Testament. Jehovah in human form par- 
takes of a covenant meal as Abraham's guest, acquaints 
him with the divine counsels, and admits him to the 
greatest intimacy. And so far from this being "con- 
nected with no institution," it is the basis of the whole 
future constitution of Israel as the people of God (xviii. 
19), and the foundation of its national counterpart en- 
acted at Sinai. 

The successive trials of Abraham's faith in J again 
form a graduated series, culminating in the sacrifice of 
Isaac ; see pp. 149, 150. 

And the promises to Abraham respecting his offspring 

1 This P chapter is thus a necessary link in this J series. 



230 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

exhibit a corresponding progression. The Lord first en- 
gaged (xii. 2) to make of him a great nation, and (xiii. 16) to 
make his seed as the dust of the earth. After years of vain 
expectation Abraham begins to suspect that he shall have 
no offspring of his own, but that an inmate of his house 
shall be his heir ; whereupon the Lord assures him he 
shall have a child of his own body (xv. 3, 4). But Sarah 
was barren ; so at her instance he forms an intimacy with 
Hagar, and hopes that Ishmael may prove to be the ex- 
pected seed (xvi. 2). He is then informed that the child 
of the bondwoman is not the promised heir, but that 
Sarah his wife shall have a son (xviii. 10). After Isaac is 
born he is tried once more by being bidden to offer him 
up as a sacrifice ; and when his faith endured this final 
test the promise of a numerous and victorious seed that 
shall bless the world was renewed in ampler terms than 
before and is confirmed by the new sanction of an oath 
(xxii. 15-18). 1 

With all this evidence of a developing plan and of 
methodical arrangement it surely cannot be said that J 
has " no particular system." 

The style of P in this chapter and elsewhere is said to 
be distinguished from that of J in being " stereotyped," 2 
and marked by the recurrence of the same unvarying 
phrases. The repetition charged is largely for the sake 
of emphasis. And it is characteristic of Hebrew writers 
generally that they take little pains to vary their ex- 
pressions. If the same thought is to be conveyed, it is 
mostly done in the same or like terms. It is not difficult 

1 This is an embarrassing chapter for the critics as we shall see. The 
great majority have assumed that an account by J and another by E are 
here blended. The present tendency is, with Dillman, to substitute for 
J free additions by R ; in which case an independent production by a 
different writer, with an appendix by another still, fits as admirably 
into J's scheme as though it had been prepared with special reference 
to it. 2 ibid., p. 245. 



COVENANT SEALED BY ABRAHAM (OH. XVII.) 231 

to produce an equal number of identical phrases in J. 
Thus, "lift up the eyes" (xiii. 10, 14); "unto thy seed 
will I give this land" (xii. 7 ; xv. 18) ; " there he builded 
an altar unto Jehovah " (xii. 7, 8 ; xiii. 18) ; " he called on 
the name of Jehovah" (xii. 8; xiii. 4); "the Canaanite 
then in the land " (xii. 6 ; xiii. 7) ; " between me and 
thee " (xiii. 8 ; xvi. 5). 

P is said to be " verbose and repetitious." But the 
repetitions adduced are all for the sake of emphasizing 
what was of great consequence in the view of the writer. 
So " the land of Canaan," twice (xii. 5b), as Abram's ob- 
jective point, and to mark the contrast with a former un- 
filled project (xi. 31) ; Ishmael born of the handmaid not 
the wife, thrice (xvi. 15, 16) ; and particularly in ch. xvii. 
Like repetitions can be pointed out in J, e.g., "Jehovah 
appeared to him," twice (xii. 7) ; " Bethel on the west " (ver. 
8) repeats what had just been said ; " famine in the land," 
twice (ver. 10) ; the last clause of ver. 14 adds nothing to 
that which immediately precedes ; xiii. 3b, 4a repeats xii. 
8 with great minuteness ; "to thee will I give it," twice 
(xiii. 15, 17) ; " and the angel of Jehovah said," thrice 
(xvi. 9, 10, 11). 

MAKES OF P 

Dillmann finds the following criteria of P in this 
chapter. 

1. Back references to it in later P passages (xxi. 2, 4 ; 
xxviii. 4; xxxv. 12; Ex. ii. 24; vi. 3, 4; Lev. xii. 3). 
But— 

a. The most of these occur in brief paragraphs, which 
are ascribed to P mainly because of these very refer- 
ences, and are enclosed in sections attributed to other 
documents. 

b. Its relation to other P passages and common author- 
ship with them is not only admitted but insisted on as 



232 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

involved in the unity of the entire Pentateuch. It is 
only denied that these are by a different author from the 
J passages, of which these references afford no proof. 

c. It has already been shown that ch. xvii. is insepar- 
ably connected with the so-called J section, ch. xii.-xvi.; 
xviii. 14 J refers back to xvii. 21 ('tPifcb at the set time) ; 
"Abraham" (xviii. 6 J), "Sarah" (ver. 9 J), and so thence- 
forward regularly, in both J and E passages, is with ex- 
plicit reference to the change of name (xvii. 5, 15 P). The 
critics seek to evade this plain indication of unity by 
gratuitously assuming that R, has systematically altered 
the text throughout to conform to this passage. 1 

2. The promise of nations (vs. 4, 5, 16), of kings (vs. 6, 
16), and princes (ver. 20). 

a. This is an advance upon the promise (xii. 2) to make 
of Abram a great nation ; and its form is determined by 
the new names given to Abraham (father of multitude) 
and Sarah (princess). Other promises which speak of 
nations (xxviii. 3 ; xlviii. 4) and kings (xxxv. 11) descended 
from the patriarchs borrow their expressions from this 
passage, and are uttered with evident allusion to it. In 
like manner in xlviii. 19 J, the future superiority of 
Ephraim over Manasseh is expressed by saying that the 
latter should become a people and be great, but the 
former should become nations, what is here said of Abra- 
ham being applied to one of his descendants. 

b. The promise of princes to spring from Ishmael is 
only found in this one place (ver. 20), and it answers 
precisely to its fulfilment (xxv. 16). 

3. The statements of time (vs. 1, 17, 24, 25). 

These are arbitrarily referred to P by rule even in the 

1 Hupfeld (Quellen, p. 198) thinks that R changed the names to con- 
form with P, not in the following, but in the preceding chapters, the 
forms " Abram" and "Sarai," which were peculiar to P, being intro- 
duced by R likewise into J in ch. xi. 29-xvi. 



COVENANT SEALED BY ABRAHAM (CH. XVII.) 233 

midst of sections or paragraphs ascribed to other docu- 
ments. Nevertheless in repeated instances the critics 
find themselves compelled to admit that such statements 
are not peculiar to P. And this is equivalent to an ad- 
mission that they cannot be made a criterion of this 
document. See Chapter xvi., Marks of P, No. 1. 

4. The similarity of the covenant with that described 
in ix. 9 sqq. 

The resemblance is in phrases indicating its perpetuity, 
" establish my covenant," " thee and thy seed after thee ; " 
and in appointing a token of the covenant, the rainbow 
and circumcision. This identity of terms results from 
the like nature of the transactions. 

5. The great redundancy of the style. 

It has already been shown that what the critics con- 
sider an idle multiplication of words is in fact such a re- 
peated asseveration as was appropriate in the situation 
and demanded by it. 

6. El Shaddai (ver. 1), Elohim (ver. 3 sqq.). 

The significance of these names in the connection has 
been pointed out. The divine omnipotence is here 
pledged to accomplish what was beyond the powers of 
nature. El Shaddai also occurs in E xliii. 14, and 
Shaddai in J xlix. 25 ; Num. xxiv. 4, 16. 

7. JTfntf possession (ver. 8). This is the only word used 
in this sense in the first four books of the Pentateuch, 
except ntDTYQ (Ex. vi. 8, P), and Slbtta inheritance, which 
is also given to P whenever reference is made to the oc- 
cupation of Canaan, with the single exception of Ex. xv. 
17 in the Song of Moses. Another synonym, tw*0 pos- 
session, nowhere occurs in the books above named, but is 
limited to Deut. ii. and iii. and three verses in Joshua. 
If now !"WHfc$ is the proper word to express the idea in- 
tended, and all the passages from Genesis to Numbers 
in which this idea is found, are given to P, never to J or 



234 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

E, how can it be otherwise than that it should be found 
exclusively in P ? And yet the critics are not unanimous 
in making it altogether peculiar to P ; it occurs repeat- 
edly in Lev. xxv. (not P, Well.) ; also in Num. xxxii. 5, 
22 (J, Schrad., Kays. ; JE, Well. ; ver. 5 J, Dill.) ; Josh, 
xxi. 12 (not P, Dill.); xxii 4 (J, Schrad., Kays. ; D, Well., 
Dill.). Dillmann accounts for the presence of this word 
in Josh. xxii. 4 by the magisterial assertion, "DDfffHS "pa 
a phrase of P has been substituted by Ed or some later 
hand for DDflflh? fl&" 

8. ffHJfla sojournings (ver. 8). The phrase " land of 
sojournings " occurs four times besides with explicit ref- 
erence to this passage (xxviii. 4 ; xxxvi. 7 ; xxxvii. 1 ; Ex. 
vi. 4) ; and " sojournings " without " land " in Gen. xlvii. 9. 
All these passages are referred to P. The corresponding 
verb *ft5 is, however, used of the sojournings of the pa- 
triarchs alike in each of the so-called documents (P, xxxv. 
27 ; Ex. vi. 4 ; J, Gen. xxi. 34 ; xxvi. 3 ; E, xx. 1 ; xxi. 23). 

9. njpE purchase (vs. 12, 13, 23, 27). The expression 
" purchase of silver," or " bought with money," occurs but 
once outside of this chapter, viz. : Ex. xii. 44. The word 
itself also occurs Gen. xxiii. 18 ; Lev. xxv. 16, 51 ; xxvii. 
22. These are all referred to P. But as this was the only 
word to express the idea, its employment was a matter of 
necessity and not peculiar to a particular document. 

10. *T»bin beget (ver. 20). This is distinguished from 
Tbj in the same sense, not by the usage of distinct doc- 
uments, but the employment of the former as the more 
dignified and formal in the direct line of descent from 
Adam to Israel, and the latter in the divergent line. See 
on ch. vi.-ix., Marks of P, No. 20. The present instance 
is only a seeming exception ; the use of TbiSi is due to the 
fact that Ishmael is here contemplated in his relation to 
Abraham, and the promise to Ishmael here made is in- 
cluded in the promise to Abraham. 



COVENANT SEALED BY ABEAHAM (CH. XVII.) 235 

11. tf iiro prince (ver. 20). This word is referred by 
Dillmann to P, except in Ex. xxii. 27 (E. V., 28) E. This 
is made a criterion of P, and verses and clauses contain- 
ing it are persistently attributed to this document even 
at the expense of dividing sentences, as is done Gen. 
xxxiv. 2a (but Schrad., J ; Well., not P, J nor E ; Kuen., E), 
Num. xvi. 2 ; xxxii. 2b (but Well., JE, Kuen., E) ; Josh, 
ix. 15 is split into three parts, and assigned to as many 
different sources. 

12. "D?"]!!! stranger (vs. 12, 27), but twice in the Hexa- 
teuch outside of this chapter, viz. : Ex. xii. 43 P ; Lev. 
xxii. 25, not P (Well.) ; "OS elsewhere in the Hexateuch 
only in J, Deut. xxxi. 16 ; xxxii. 12 ; or E, Gen. xxxv. 2, 
4 ; Josh. xxiv. 20, 23. 

13. DE2 self-same (vs. 23, 26). See Gen. vi.-ix., Marks 
of P, No." 24. 

14. nDT-bs every male (vs. 10, 12, 23). See Gen. vi.-ix., 
Marks of P* No. 12. 

15. nnni !~ns he fruitful and multiply (ver. 20). See 
Gen. vi.-ix., Marks of P, No. 15. 

16. fi*nn ]P3 and n^pn establish or ordain a covenant 
(vs. 2, 7,19, 21), do., No'.' 16. 

17. Expressions compounded with obi^ eternity, per- 
petuity. 

Such expressions are found in each of the so-called doc- 
uments, whenever perpetuity or indefinite duration is to be 
affirmed of any subject. Thus, " everlasting God " (Gen. 
xxi. 33 J) ; " everlasting hills " (Gen. xlix. 26 J ; Deut. 
xxxiii. 15 E) ; " heap for ever " (Deut. xiii. 16 D ; Josh, 
viii. 28 Ed) ; " servant for ever " (Deut. xv. 17 D) ; 
"days of old" (Deut. xxxii. 7 J); "everlasting arms" 
(Deut. xxxiii. 27 E). Such combinations are most fre- 
quent in the ritual law, all of which is assigned to P ; 
legal phrases are therefore to be expected in this doc- 
ument and in no other. Thus, " statute for ever " 



236 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

(abi^ fign) twenty-one times, (Dbi^ pn) eleven times; 
"everlasting priesthood " twice ; "perpetual covenant" 
(Ex. xxxi. 16 ; Lev. xxiv. 8; Num. xviii. 19) ; " perpetual 
possession " (Lev. xxv. 34). Exclusive of the ritual law 
the only expressions of the kind in P are those which 
declare the perpetuity of God's covenant with Noah 
(Gen. ix. 12, 16), and Abraham (xvii. 7, 13, 19), and 
of the possession of Canaan (xvii. 8; xlviii. 4). There is 
nothing in this surely to indicate diversity of authorship. 

18. Thou and thy seed after thee. See Gen. vi.-ix., 
Marks of P, No. 17. 

19. DrPHb throughout their generations (vs. 7, 9, 12). 
This phrase, with the pronoun " their " or " your," is 
used exclusively in ritual connections to denote the per- 
petuity of the institutions referred to. Since ritual mat- 
ters are regularly ascribed to P, this phrase is neces- 
sarily found only in that document. 

20. *nnn t ; S?n inrHMl That soul shall be cut officer. 
14), a technical legal phrase, not to be expected except in 
legal sections. 

21. l^DS y*\# land of Canaan (ver. 8). See ch. xii., 
Marks of P, No. 4. 

22. *ittfQ "WHS) exceedingly (vs. 2, 6, 20). See ch. vi.-ix., 
Marks of P, No. 27. 

VISIT TO ABRAHAM AND DESTRUCTION OF SODOM (CH. XVIII. 
1-XIX. 28). 

This narrative of Jehovah's visit to Abraham, and of 
the subsequent destruction of Sodom, is by the critics 
referred to J. "Wellhausen and Kuenen regard xviii. 17- 
19, and vs. 22b-33a, as late additions by another hand. 

The intimate relation of ch. xviii. to the preceding has 
already been exhibited. It is the final solemnity con- 
nected with the concluding of the covenant to which 



VISIT TO ABRAHAM, ETC. (CH. XVIII. 1-XIX. 28) 237 

Abraham gave his adhesion in ch. xvii., which acceptance 
by him is accordingly here presupposed. The reason for 
the change in the divine names has also been stated, the 
thought of God's Almighty power ruling in ch. xvii., as 
his gracious condescension does in ch. xviii., see p. 152. 

The form of expression in xviii. 1 further shows that 
it connects with what immediately precedes ; " unto him " 
finds its explanation in "Abraham," who is distinctly 
mentioned xvii. 26, and who is the prominent subject 
throughout the whole of ch. xvii. But there is nothing 
with which to link it in xvi. 7-14, the paragraph which 
it immediately follows in J, as the text is partitioned by 
the critics. 

The critics allege that xviii. 9-15 is a different account 
of the promise of Isaac's birth already given (xvii. 15-21). 
But this is obviously not the case. The latter was made 
to Abraham, the former was for the benefit of Sarah. 
That they alike receive the announcement with a measure 
of incredulity, based on the advanced age of both; that 
each laughs at what to the natural reason seemed so pre- 
posterous, which the writer notes with allusion to the 
meaning of the name of Isaac ; that the interval before 
the birth is stated in almost identical terms, but little 
time having elapsed between the two promises, is alto- 
gether natural and suggestive of one writer and one con- 
tinuous narrative, not of two separate stories relative to 
the same event. The Lord promises to return to Sarah 
(xviii. 14) not after the birth of her child in a visit which 
J is imagined to have recorded, and B has not preserved, 
but he visited her in giving her Isaac (xxi. 1). 

Kuenen reaches his conclusion that xviii. 17-19, 22b- 
33a, are interpolations of a late date in the following- 
manner : x " Ch. xii. 3, where ' the families of the land ' 
are mentioned, is certainly more primitive than xviii, 18, 

1 Hexateucb, p. 246. 



238 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

where c the peoples of the earth ' are substituted. The 
latter formula stands (Gen. xviii. 17-19), in a context 
that sounds almost Deuteronomic, and may therefore be 
brought down with high probability to the seventh cen- 
tury (cf. Jer. iii. 17 ; iv. 2 ; xii. 15-17 ; xxxiii. 9). In the 
immediate neighborhood of these verses stands the peri- 
cope (vs. 22b-33a), the theme of which, viz., the righteous- 
ness of Yahwe in connection with the lot of individuals, 
appears again to point to the seventh century, in which, 
at all events, it was dealt with by the Deufceronomist (vii. 
9, 10 ; xxiv. 16) ; Jeremiah (xvii. 14-18 ; xviii. 19-23 ; xxxi. 
29, 30), and Habakkuk (i. 12 sqq.). While the passage 
testifies to continued theological reflection, its soteriology 
finds an echo in Gen. xv. 5, 6, which is parallel not with 
Isaiah vii. 9b, but with Hab. ii. 4b." 

The allegation that these ideas savor of a later age is 
pure assumption. Gen. xii. 3 speaks not of " the families 
of the land " of Canaan, but of " all the families of the 
earth," which is precisely identical with " all the nations 
of the earth " in xviii. 18. The doctrine of a world-wide 
redemption is rooted in that of the unity of the human 
race, and the relationship established between all nations 
by their descent from a common stock (ch. x.), and in the 
primal promise of a victory by the seed of the Avoman 
over the destroyer (iii. 15). It is a simple unfolding of 
what is involved in these earliest disclosures, when the 
temporary limitation of God's special blessing to Abra- 
ham and his descendants is in the very first announce- 
ment made to him declared to be in order to pave the 
way for a blessing to all the families of mankind. This 
was not a doctrine reserved for the age of Jeremiah. 
Moreover, as Dillmann suggests : " Men had reflected on 
the righteousness and mercy of God before Jeremiah, e.g., 
Gen. xx. 4, and on the possibility of intercession for the 
guilty, e.g., xx. 7, 17 ; Ex. xxxii. 11 sqq. ; besides, God's 



VISIT TO ABRAHAM, ETC. (CII. XVIII. 1-XIX. 28) 239 

disclosure to Abraham (xviii. 20, 21) is altogether aimless 
and disconnected without vs. 17-19 and 23 sqq." And 
the supreme importance of faith and obedience was well 
understood before it was formulated by Habakkuk, e.g., 
Ex. iv. 5, 31 ; xiv. 31 ; Num. xiv. 11. 

This is but a specimen of the attempt that is made to 
impose an arbitrary scheme of the development of relig- 
ious thought upon the writings of the Old Testament. 
Such a scheme is devised at the pleasure of the critic. It 
is then used as a standard for the determination of the 
age of books or of paragraphs and sections, which are 
distributed irrespective of their true position according 
as they correspond with one period or another of this 
imaginary scheme. 

Wellhausen tries to prove the existence of interpola- 
tions by a different process. He says that 13$ (ver. 17), 
and -nos fpsb VIW? I have known him to the end that 
(ver. 19), are suspicious, and vs. 17-19 are allied in con- 
tents to xiii. 14-17 and xxii. 15-18, which he likewise 
pronounces spurious. But 13$ occurs, besides, in J xxiv. 
45 ; xxvii. 8, 32 ; xxviii. 13 ; xxxiii. 14 ; xxxiv. 30 ; xiv. 
4 ; and an unusual construction cannot for that sole rea- 
son be summarily ejected from the text, unless no writer 
can use a phrase which he does not employ more than 
once. The resemblance of this passage to others, whose 
genuineness there is no good reason for suspecting, in- 
stead of discrediting it, tends rather to their mutual con- 
firmation. 

In regard to vs. 22b-33a, there is not even the pretext 
of a diversity of diction or st}de. It is claimed that ver. 
22a connects well with 33b; "the men went toward 
Sodom, . . . and Abraham returned unto his place." 
But the fact that the omission of the intervening verses 
would create no evident break in the connection is no 
proof of interpolation, as other critics here confess. 



240 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

Abraham's awe (vs. 27, 30-32) is not inconsistent with 
the attentions shown to his divine guest (vs. 2 sqq.). It 
is true that the men include Jehovah (vs. 2, 16) ; but 
this is not the case (ver. 22) where he is expressly dis- 
tinguished from them. The genuineness of the passage is 
besides vouched for by vs. 20, 21, which are designed to 
prepare the way for the interview that follows ; by the 
explicit allusion, xix. 27 to xviii. 22b, and the scene that 
follows ; by the number " two " (xix. 1), which implies 
that one had remained behind (xviii. 2) ; by " angels " 
(xix. 1, 15), indicating that they were Jehovah's messen- 
gers (see ver. 13), not Jehovah himself ; and by the use 
of the singular alternating with the plural (xviii. 3, 4, 9, 
10), showing that one of the three was the superior, was, 
in fact, Jehovah (vs. 13, 17, 20, 22), and this feature does 
not reappear after xviii. 22 until xix. 17-22, at which 
point it is thus intimated that Jehovah rejoins them. 
The assertion that J never uses the plural " angels " is 
disproved by this very passage. 

MAKES OF J 

The following grounds are alleged for assigning this 
section to J : 

1. " The same beauty and transparency of description, 
the same vividness of portraiture, the same depth and 
fulness of thought, the same naive and popular anthro- 
pomorphism as in ii. 4-iii. 24 ; xi. 1-9, shows the writer 
to be the same." 

The correspondence in style and character is freely 
admitted, and the identity of authorship affirmed. Like 
qualities are to be expected in compositions by the same 
author when the subject admits of similar treatment. 
But a different style befits majestic scenes such as the 
creation, in ch. i., or those of awful grandeur, as the flood 



VISIT TO ABRAHAM, ETC. (CH. XVIII. 1-XIX. 28) 241 

(ch. vi.-ix.) } or the monotonous recital of a genealogy, as 
ch. v., or the technical enactments of ritual, or when the 
omnipotence of God is to be emphasized (ch. xvii.) 
rather than his condescension. Unless it is contended 
that the author of these chapters could not write upon 
themes of a different description, his productions may 
be expected to exhibit a diversity of style corresponding 
to the variety of matters with which he deals. 

2. The back reference, xviii. 18 to xii. 2, 3. 

The reference is obvious, but no more so than the use 
of " Abraham " and " Sarah " throughout ch. xviii. to 
xvii. 5, 15 ; or xviii. 14 to xvii. 21 ; or xviii. 11, 12, to 
xvii. 17 ; or the transaction in ch. xviii. to the ratifica- 
tion of the covenant on the part of Abraham in ch. xvii., 
which it presupposes. 

3. Jehovah. See page 152. 

4. wa my Lord, xviii. 3, 27, 30-32 ; xix. 18. 

Apart from these chapters this word occurs in J, Ex. 
iv. 10, 13 ; xxxiv. 9 ; Josh. vii. 7, 8 ; E, Gen. xx. 4 ; Ex. 
xv. 17 ; JE, Gen. xv. 2, 8 ; disputed, Ex. v. 22 J (Well.), 
E (Dill.) ; E, Num. xiv. 17; D, Deut. iii. 24 ; ix. 26. All 
in Hex. 

5. train look, xix. 17, 26. Not referred to J in any 
other place ; JE, Gen. xv. 5 ; E, Ex. iii. 6 ; xxxiii. 8 ; Num. 
xii. 8 ; xxi. 9 ; xxiii. 21. All in Hex. 

6. qpizj look forth xviii. 16 ; xix. 28; once besides in J, 
xxvi. 8 ; JE, Ex. xiv. 24 ; doubtful, Num. xxi. 20 ; K, Num. 
xxiii. 28. All in Hex. 

7. HjOT cry, xviii. 21 ; xix. 13 ; besides in J, Ex. xi. 6 ; 
xii. 30; T E, Gen. xxvii. 34; Ex. iii. 7, 9; xxii. 23 (Well., 
K). All in Hex. 

8. fibbfi far he it, xviii. 25 ; besides in J, xliv. 7, 17 ; E, 
Josh. xxiv. 16 ; K, Josh. xxii. 29. All in Hex. 

9. D3>S»1 this time, xviii. 32. This word occurs repeat- 
edly in passages assigned to J. in the singular denoting 

16 



242 THE GENERATIONS OF TEKAH 

this time or this once ; in the dual meaning twice ; and 
in the plural with different numerals, e.g., viz., three times, 
Ex. xxxiv. 23, 24 ; Num. xxiv. 10 ; seven times, Gen. 
xxxiii. 3; Josh. vi. 4, 15. In passages assigned to P 
once, twice, and three times do not chance to occur, but 
only seven times, Lev. iv. 6, 17, and repeatedly ; and ten 
times, Num. xiv. 22 ; the very same word being employed 
as in J passages. If, then, this word is to be classed as a 
criterion of J, it can only be on the assumption that while 
P knew how to say seven times and ten times, he did 
not know how to say this time or this once. 

10. &}-nin behold now, xviii. 27, 31 ; xix. 2, 8, 19, 20. 
See ch. xii.' 10-20, Marks of J, No. 4. 

11. -nnya for the sake of, xviii. 26, 29, 31, 32. See ch. 
xii. 10-20, Marks of J, No. 5. 

12. nSB urge, press, xix. 3, 9 ; but once besides in Hex. 
xxxiii. 11 J. 

13. D"i£D before, xix. 4 ; besides in J, ii. 5 ; xxiv. 15, 45 ; 
Ex. ix. 30 ; x. 7 ; xii. 34 ; Josh. ii. 8 ; JE Josh. iii. 1. With 
the prep. 3 it occurs in J, Gen. xxxvii. 18 ; xlv. 28 ; Deut. 
xxxi. 21 ; but also in E, Gen. xxvii. 4, 33 ; xii. 50 ; Ex. i. 
19 ; and in P, Lev. xiv. 36. 

14. ^ftblb not to, xix. 21 ; besides in J, iii. 11 ; iv. 15 ; 
xxxviii. 9; : Ex. viii. 18, 25 (E. V., vs. 22, 29); ix. 17; 
Lev. xviii. 30 ; xxvi. 15 ; Num. xxxii. 9 ; but also E, Ex. 
xx. 20 ; Josh. xxii. 25 ; D, Deut. iv. 21 ; viii. 11 ; xvii. 
12, 20 ; Josh, xxiii. 6 ; and P, Lev. xx. 4 (so Noldeke ; 
R, Dill.), Num. ix. 7 (Dill, worked over, and this word 
alleged in proof). 

15. *b^& peradventure, xviii. 24, 28-32. See ch. xvi., 
Marks of J, No. 12. 

16. Dtf 'ipb to meet, xviii. 2 ; xix. 1 ; repeatedly in J, E, 
and D ; Num. xxxi. 13, according to Dillmann, consists of 
" genuine phrases " of P, with the sole exception of this 
one word. 



VISIT TO ABRAHAM, ETC. (CH. XYIII. 1-XIX. 28) 243 

17. n-T HBb wherefore, xviii. 13 ; besides in J, xxv. 22, 
32; xxxii. 30 (E. V., ver. 29); xxxiii. 15; Num. xi. 20; 
Josh. vii. 10 ; JE, Num. xiv. 41 ; Ex. v. 22 is referred 
by Dillmann to E, and by Wellhausen to J. All in Hex. 

18. *J5"b# ^3 for therefore, xviii. 5 ; xix. 8 ; but four times 
besides in Hex., all of which are referred to J, viz., xxxiii. 
10 ; xxxviii. 26 ; Num. x. 31 ; xiv. 43. 

19. qa also, xviii. 13, 23, 24 ; but once besides in J, 
viz., iii. 1 ; Dillmann also refers to this document, Lev. 
xxvi., in which this word occurs several times (vs. 16, 24, 
28, 39-44), but in this he differs from other critics ; it is 
besides found in JE, Num. xvi. 14 ; E, Deut. xxxiii. 3, 20 ; 
and D, Deut. ii. 11 ; xv. 17 ; xxxi. 27. 

20. pn only, xix. 8 ; repeatedly in J, E, and D. See 
ch. vi. 1-8, Marks of J, No. 7. 

21. £» I pray, xviii. 3, 4, 21, 30, 32 ; xix. 2, 7, 18, 20, 
etc. Se'e ch. xii. 10-20, Marks of J, No. 3. 

22. Eorms in "p. These occur repeatedly in J, E, and 
D ; but emphatic forms suited to earnest address or 
vigorous assertion are scarcely to be expected in the class 
of passages that are assigned to P. Nevertheless we find 
]W^ (Josh. xvii. 10 P) in a simple statement of tribal 
boundaries. This is in a P context, and the verb is 
reckoned a P word. 

23. btf for Jibs these, xix. 8, 25 ; six times besides in 
Hex. ; Ed, xxvi!~3, 4; D, Deut, iv. 42; vii. 22 ; xix. 11 ; 
also in Lev. xviii. 27, which Dillmann supposes to have 
been extracted from J, but other critics refer it to a dif- 
ferent source. 

24. Thy servant for I, xviii. 3, 5 ; xix. 2, 19 ; several 
times in J, but also in E, xxxii. 21 (E. V., ver. 20) ; xxxiii. 
5 ; and D, Deut. iii. 24 ; not in P for the reason that no 
passages are assigned to this document in which this con- 
struction would be possible. 

25. "pfcjil ^fa bb all the nations of the earth (xviii. 18). 



244 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

This expression is found in but three other passages in 
the Hexateuch, no one of which is referred to J, viz., in 
xxii. 18 ; xxvi. 4 K ; and Deut. xxviii. 1 D. The same 
idea of the universality of the blessing through the patri- 
archs and their seed occurs xii. 3 ; xxviii. 14 J, where it 
is expressed by the phrase Htt^n nhSTO bb all the fam- 
ilies of the ground. The promise to Abraham is in three 
instances extended to three particulars — the land of Ca- 
naan, a numerous seed, and a blessing to all nations (xii. 
3 ; xviii. 18 ; xxii. 18) ; and in three instances limited to 
the first two (xiii. 14-17 ; ch. xv. ; ch. xvii.). This promise 
to Abraham is repeated to his successors, both in its full, 
xxvi. 4 (to Isaac), xxviii. 13, 14 (to Jacob), and in its re- 
stricted form, xxviii. 3, 4 (Isaac to Jacob), xxxv. 11, 12 
(God to Jacob), xlviii. 3, 4 (Jacob to Joseph), the lan- 
guage of these last three passages being borrowed from 
ch. xvii., with explicit reference to the culminating and 
emphatic utterance there made. There is no suggestion 
in this of two separate documents or sources, since the 
promise is uttered in its restricted form alike by Jehovah 
(J) and by God Almighty (P). And the simple reason 
why the full form is only found in J is that whenever 
the name God Almighty is linked with this promise it 
is with a definite reference to ch. xvii., and it is accord- 
ingly shaped into conformity with this model ; see No 
Discrepancies, No. 3, page 163. 

26. *ip2S D^S^n rise up early in the morning (xix. 2, 27). 
This verb, which is almost always prolonged into the full 
phrase, occurs eight times in J, and eleven times in E, 
not reckoning Josh. iii. 1 JE, which it has been found 
impracticable to separate. It does not occur in P, be- 
cause the passages assigned to this document offer no 
occasion for its use. 

27. n2"^ HinriUJn bowed himself to the earth (xviii. 2, 
xix. 1). The only other passages in the Hexateuch in 



VISIT TO ABRAHAM, ETC. (CH. XVIII. 1-XIX. 28) 945 

which this phrase occurs are xxiv. 52 ; xxxiii. 3 ; xlii. 6 ; 
xiiii. 26 J ; xxxvii. 10 ; xlviii. 12 E ; but the verb occurs 
repeatedly iu both J and E without being followed by 
ni*^ to the earth. The absence of n£"ltf in the two in- 
stances in which this verb is found in a section assigned 
to P (xxiii. 7, 12) is therefore not peculiar, and is not 
suggestive of a different source, especially as its omis- 
sion is plainly due to the presence of yiKn in the same 
clause. Comp. Ex. xxxiv. 8 ; Josh. v. 14 J, where it is 
omitted because of "S^S in the preceding clause. 

28. "jH «ra find favor (xviii. 3; xix. 19) always in J; 
not in any paragraph of P. . See eh. vi. 1-8, No. 10. 

29. "On TWP show kindness (xix. 19) ; besides in the 
Hex. xxiv' 12, 14, 49 ; xxxii. 11 (E. V., ver. 10) ; xlvii. 29 ; 
Josh. ii. 12, 14 J ; Gen. xx. 13 ; xxi. 23 ; xl. 14 ; Ex. xx. 
6 E ; Dt. v. 10 D. Not in P. 

30. rnn burn, without 5]^ anger, meaning to be angry 
(xviii. 30, 32) ; besides in J only, iv. 5, 6 ; xxxiv. 7 ; but 
also in E, xxxL 35, 36 ; xxxiv. 7 ; xlv. 5 ; Num. xvi. 15. 
More frequently with £]$ both in J and E ; thus Gen. 
xxxix. 19 ; xliv. 18 ; Ex. iv. 14 ; xxxii. 10, 11, 19, 22 ; Num. 
xxii. 22, 27 ; xxiv. 10 ; xxxii. 10, 13 ; Dt. xxxi. 17 J ; Gen. 
xxx. 2 ; Ex. xxii. 23 ; Num. xi. 1, 10, 33 ; xii. 9 ; xxv. 3 E. 
It can, therefore, be no mark of diversity of authorship 
that rnn in Josh. vii. 1, the single instance in which it 
occurs in a paragraph assigned to P, is accompanied by 

31. The disjunctive question (xviii. 21) ; but disjunc- 
tive questions are not peculiar to J. They are found in 
P as well, e.g., xvii. 17. 

32. Q^ttja fctt advanced in days (xviii. 11) ; this expres- 
sion occurs but once besides in J (xxiv. 1). It is found, 
also, Josh. xiii. 1 bis ; xxiii. 1, 2, where it is referred to D. 

33. " The relation of this narrative to P's account in 
xix. 29." 



246 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

But xix. 29 is not another account of the overthrow of 
the cities of the plain, which is to be referred to another 
writer. It simply reverts to the subject of the overthrow 
as previously related, in order to introduce further state- 
ments respecting Lot. 

34. "The difference between xviii. 12 and xvii. 17." 
These are not variant explanations of the origin of the 
name of Isaac, as though one writer derived it from the 
laughter of Abraham, another from that of Sarah before 
Isaac's birth, and still a third from the laughter of Sarah 
after his birth (xxi. 6). These allusions to the signifi- 
cance of the name on different occasions are quite con- 
sistent with one another, and with a common authorship. 

LOT'S INCEST (CH. XIX. 29-38) 

The critics generally attribute vs. 30-38 to J, and ver. 
29 to P, alleging that this verse is not connected either 
with what precedes or follows, but is a separate and in- 
dependent account of the destruction of the cities of the 
plain. Kayser, however, substantially concedes the 
whole case when he says that ver. 29 " seems like a con- 
densation of an account by P of Sodom's overthrow, 
which has been omitted by the redactor." Plainly this 
is not a recital, but the summary of a recital elsewhere 
given. And the narrative, which Kayser misses, is just 
that which is to be found in the previous part of the 
chapter, but which the critics assign to a different docu- 
ment. Nevertheless this verse is tied to what precedes, 
not only by its subject-matter, but by its language. 
Dillmann claims that it contains Ove of P's " character- 
istic expressions," viz. : LJlohim, remembered (as viii. 1), 
nTO destroyed (as vi. 17 ; ix. 11, 15), cities of the plain (as 
xiii. 12), in which Lot dwelt (not " in one of which ; " this 
sense is, however, justified by the passage to which he 



LOT'S INCEST (CH. XIX. 29-38) 247 

himself refers, viii. 4, as well as by similar examples, 
xxi. 7 ; Judg. xii. 7 ; 1 Sam. xvii. 43 ; 2 Chron. xvi 14 ; 
Job xxi. 32). But in fact the diction of this Terse is too 
closely allied to the antecedent narrative to admit of 
being sundered from it : firm? destroy, as xix. 13 ; xiii. 10 ; 
*]£H overthrow, as vs. 21, 25 ; cities of the plain, see ver. 
25 ; in which Lot dwelt is a plain allusion to xiii. 12, 
which the critics for this reason cut out of its connec- 
tion and assign to P. But, as has been previously shown, 
it is indissolubly attached to the context in which it 
stands. That Abram continued to dwell in Canaan, 
while Lot dwelt elsewhere, is the very point of the whole 
narrative, which is further emphasized in the promise 
which immediately follows (xiii. 14-17). " God remem- 
bered " affords a good illustration of critical methods ; xxx. 
22 is parcelled between P, E, and J, though the words 
" and God remembered Kachel " are the only ones in the 
entire chapter which are attributed to P. God's remem- 
bering Abraham plainly refers back, not to his covenant 
with Abraham in ch. xvii. (P), but to Abraham's interces- 
sion (xviii. 23-32, J). That no variant representation is 
made, whether of the reason of Lot's deliverance or of 
the circumstances attending it, was shown, p. 165, No 
Discrepancies. No. 7. 

Moreover, it is impossible to find a suitable connection 
for ver. 29 in P. It is manifestly incongruous to attach 
it to the end of ch. xvii., which on the partition hypothe- 
sis it immediately follows. It is customary to adopt 
Hupf eld's gratuitous assumption that it has been trans- 
posed from its original position after xiii. 12. But 
apart from the fact that this is building hypothesis upon 
hypothesis, this verse could never have stood there. It 
is not a declaration that God destroyed the cities of the 
plain, but that when he destroyed them he did what is 
here stated. This implies a previous account of the de- 



248 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

struction, or at least a mention of it. But no such 
mention is to be found anywhere in P. The verse con- 
sequently belongs where it stands. 

"While ver. 29 is thus a recapitulation of the preceding 
narrative, it is not added to it for the sake of rounding it 
up to a conclusion, as Delitzsch 1 formerly maintained. 
Astruc and Eichhorn correctly regarded it as an intro- 
duction to the following paragraph (vs. 30-38), after the 
brief digression (vs. 27, 28). And this accounts for the 
use of Elohim. Lot had thus far been considered as 
under the sheltering protection of Abraham, and so of 
the God of Abraham. The last link of connection is 
now severed. Lot passes quite beyond the limits of the 
holy land, and henceforth stands in no relation whatever 
to Abraham or to Abraham's God. He is reduced to the 
footing of an alien, and God is Elohim to him as to other 
Gentiles. (See pp. 152, 153.) 

Noldeke claims for P, in addition to ver. 29, the 
clause in ver. 30, " he dwelt in the mountain," and ap- 
peals to xiii. 12 (see Marks of J, No. 3, under ch. xiii.) ; 
xxxvi. 8. Other critics, however, decline in this instance 
to abide by a test which they apply elsewhere. 

Ilgen referred vs. 30-38 to the Second Elohist, and 
Boehmer to the redactor, on the ground that the author 
of the preceding narrative, in which Lot is represented 
as a righteous person, could not have related this shame- 
ful story. But the sacred writers do not conceal the 
weaknesses or the sins of even the best of men ; not 
Abraham's prevarication, nor Jacob's duplicity, nor 
Noah's intoxication. The peril in which Lot was in- 
volving himself by his inconsiderate choice of a resi- 
dence is estimated at the outset (xiii. 12, 13) ; that he 
did not wholly escape the infection of Sodom is shown 
(xix. 8) ; preparation is thus made for the infamy here 

1 In the second and third editions of his Genesis. 



LOT'S INCEST (CH. XIX. 29-38) 249 

disclosed. That this paragraph is a continuation of the 
preceding narrative is further apparent from the points 
of connection between them. Lot's being in Zoar (ver. 
30) corresponds with ver. 23 ; his going to dwell in the 
mountain with ver. 17 ; the mention of the two daugh- 
ters (vs. 15, 16) implies that something further was to 
be related respecting them ; the absence of his wife is 
accounted for by her having perished (ver. 26). In fact, 
the only imaginable reason why Lot is mentioned in the 
history at all is that he was the ancestor of Moab and 
Ammon. This concluding paragraph of the chapter is 
accordingly indispensable to both documents, is equally 
linked with both, and binds both together in a common 
unity. 

The critical division renders P's mention of Lot alto- 
gether nugatory. P particularly records his parentage 
and his relation to Abram (xi. 27) ; his accompanying 
Terah and Abram from Ur of the Chaldees to Haran 
(ver. 31) ; his going thence with Abram to Canaan (xii. 
5) ; his large property and retinue (xiii. 6) ; his parting 
from Abram and dwelling in the cities of the plain (vs. 
11, 12) ; the deliverance granted him for Abram's sake 
w r hen God destroyed these cities (xix. 29). And there 
he disappears. The very point and purpose of the whole 
narrative is not reached, 1 viz. : That from Lot sprang the 
tribes of Moab and Ammon, w T hich are thus, in accord- 
ance with the uniform plan of Genesis, removed like Ish- 
mael, the descendants of Keturah, and Esau, beyond the 
limits of the promised land, that it may remain in the 
undisturbed possession of the chosen race. The missing 
paragraph containing the key to the significance of Lot 

1 Wellhausen remarks (Composition des Hexateuchs. p. 15) : "Nol- 
deke calls attention to a break in Q (P) ; he must without doubt have 
connected the two nations of Moab and Ammon with Lot, who in and 
of himself has no significance." 



250 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

(xix. 30-38) is ascribed to J ; but his account, too, is 
mutilated, if not at the end, at the beginning. Lot is 
suddenly introduced (xii. 4a), with no intimation who he 
was, and no previous mention of him. 



MARKS OF J 

The following alleged marks of J evidently afford no 
indication of the existence of distinct documents. 

1. HTpS first-born (vs. 31, 33, 34, 37), occurs but once 
besides in Hex., viz. : Gen. xxix. 26, which is cut out of 
an E context and assigned to J purely on account of this 
and the following word. 

2. ftyyz younger (vs. 31, 34, 35, 38), occurs besides in 
J, xxv. 23 ; xliii. 33 ; in xxix. 26, xlviii. 14, Josh. vi. 
26 it occurs in mixed contexts, and is referred to J 
purely on account of this word. 

3. 3HT rpn preserve seed (vs. 32, 34). See ch. vi.-ix., 
Marks of J, No. 12. 

The charge that this story is a product of national an- 
tipathy, and originated in the conflicts of a later period, 
will only be credited by those who for other reasons dis- 
trust the truth of the narratives of Genesis. That a na- 
tion sprung from such a source should practise debasing 
orgies (Num. xxv. 1-3) is not surprising. 

ABRAHAM WITH ABIMELECH, KING OF GERAR (CH. XX.) 
CRITICAL EMBARRASSMENT 

The divisive hypothesis encountered an obstacle in 
this chapter by which it was seriously embarrassed, and 
which finally led to the overthrow of its earlier forms. 
The more minute and thorough the analysis was made, 
the more apparent it became that neither the document 



ABRAHAM IN GERAR (CH. XX.) 251 

hypothesis, as at first proposed, nor the supplement 
hypothesis, was capable of being applied to this chapter 
or to the subsequent portion of Genesis. The alterna- 
tion of the divine names, Elohim and Jehovah, in suc- 
cessive sections, had been the starting-point of the hy- 
pothesis, and was relied upon as the palpable evidence 
of its reality. Two writers, the Elohist and the Jeho- 
vist, were supposed to be thus clearly indicated. The 
characteristic diction and style of each was made out 
by a diligent comparison of the sections respectively at- 
tributed to them. All went on swimmingly at the be- 
ginning, fresh criteria being gathered as the work pro- 
ceeded. 

But unfortunately neither this chapter nor those that 
follow can be brought into harmony with the conclusions 
thus far reached. The words associated with Elohim in 
the account of the creation (Gen. i.) and of the flood (vi.- 
ix.), have disappeared entirely, or only reappear in Gen- 
esis for the most part in Jehovah sections ; and Elohim 
in ch. xx. and henceforth is associated with the diction 
and the style held to be characteristic of the Jehovist. 
The natural inference is that the critics have been too 
hasty in their conclusions. They have made deductions 
from premises which do not warrant them, and which 
are nullified by a more extended examination of the 
facts. They have mistaken the lofty style used in de- 
scribing grand creative acts or the vocabulary employed 
in setting forth the universal catastrophe of the deluge 
for the fixed habit of an Elohist writer, and set it over 
against the graceful style of ordinary narrative in the 
earty Jehovist sections. But in this chapter and in the 
rest of Genesis, whenever Elohim occurs in narrative 
sections, the stately periods of the account of the crea- 
tion and the vocabulary of the creation and the flood are 
dropped, and terms appropriate to the common affairs of 



252 THE GENERATIONS OE TERAH 

life and the ordinary course of human events are em- 
ployed by the Elohist precisely as they are by the Je- 
hovist. 

Elohim occurs throughout this chapter (vs. 3, 6, 11, 
13, 17), except in the last verse (ver. 18) where Jehovah 
is used. But the words and phrases are those which are 
held to be characteristic of the Jehovist. 



DICTION OF CHAPTER XX. 

1. 5?Dp to journey (ver. 1), is the standing expression in 
J for the journeying of the patriarchs (xii. 9 ; xiii. 11 ; 
xxxiii. 12, 17). 

2. ajgn Y*\8 the land of the south (ver. 1), occurs three 
times in the Hexateuch, and but once besides in the 
whole Old Testament, viz.: Gen. xxiv. 62 ; Josh. xv. 19 
J ; Num. xiii. 29, in a context where J and E are, in the 
opinion of the critics, confusedly mingled, and this verse, 
or a part of it, is assigned to E simply and avowedly be- 
cause of this one expression. n}sn, the south, whether as a 
part of the country or as a point of the compass, is men- 
tioned nowhere else in Genesis except in J (xii. 9 ; xiii. 
1, 3, 14 ; xxiv. 62 ; xxviii. 14). 

3. Kadesh and Shur (ver. 1) are mentioned by J (xvi. 
7, 14) ; so is Gerar subsequently as the abode of Isaac 
(xxvi. 1), who habitually repeated what his father had 
done. 

4. ^« Lord (ver. 4), as xviii. 3, 27, 30-32 J. See 
ch. xviii., xix., Marks of J, No. 4. 

5. ^2^ prophet (ver. 7). This term is nowhere else 
applied to Abraham in the Hexateuch, but the same 
thought is expressed in xviii. 17 sqq. J, where Jehovah 
makes him his confidant. 

6. nran flitt thou shalt surely die (ver. 7), as ii. 17 ; iii. 
4 J. 



ABRAHAM IN GERAR (CH. XX.) 253 

7. 1£22 D^EH rise early in the morning (ver. 8), as 
xix. 2, 27 ; xxvi. 31 J. See ch. xviii., xix., Marks of J, 
No. 26. 

8. n*te* rra ichat hast thou done (ver. 9), as iii. 13 ; iv. 
10 ; xii. 18 ; xxvi. 10 J. See ch. xii. 10-20, Marks of J, 
No. 7. 

9. liW* fcft ought not to be clone (ver. 9), as xxxiv. 7 J. 

10. pn only, surely (ver. 11), as vi. 5 ; xix. 8 ; xxiv. 8, 
etc., J. See ch. vi. 1-8, Marks of J, No. 7. 

11. "tt'byfor the sake of (ver. 11), as xii. 17 J. 

12. njtttf indeed (ver. 12), only besides in the Old Tes- 
tament Josh. vii. 20 J. 

13. ion rto show Mildness (ver. 13), as xix. 19 ; xxiv. 
12, 14, 49 J. T See ch. xviii., xix., Marks of J, No. 29. 

14. nnsiT maid-servant (ver. 14), as xii. 16 ; xvi. 2 ; 
xxiv. 35 J. 

15. Tp2Sb lang my land is before thee (ver. 15), as xiii. 
9 ; xxxiv. 10 ; coinp. xxiv. 51 J. 

16. rppirt to set right (ver. 16), as xxiv. 14, 44 ; Lev. 
xix. 17 J (so Dillmann). See ch. xxi. 22-34, Marks of E, 
No. 7. 

Knobel sought to adapt the supplement hypothesis 
to this state of facts by assuming that J, to whom he as- 
signs this chapter, here and in other like passages drew 
his materials from a written source, which was in the 
habit of using the divine name Elohim ; and that ver. 
18 was independently added by J himself. Hupfeld 
abandoned the supplement hypothesis altogether, and 
claimed that this and all similar passages belonged to 
a third document, E, distinct from P and J, but which 
resembled P in making use of Elohim, and resembled J 
in style and diction. This is now the popular method 
among the critics of getting over the difficulty, ver. 18 
being commonly attributed to the redactor. It is, how- 
ever, only an evasion, and an impossible evasion; for 



254 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

this chapter cannot belong to a document distinct from 
the preceding narrative, to which it is indissolubly linked. 

NOT REFERABLE TO A DISTINCT DOCUMENT 

Dillmann, indeed, maintains that " it must originally 
have stood in a different connection, and have been put 
here by E." And the reason urged is that the narrative 
is inconsistent with the age ascribed to Sarah. " Accord- 
ing to xvii. 17 P, Sarah is ninety years old, according 
to xviii. 11, 12 J, she is advanced in years and past child- 
bearing in the course of nature ; so that she cannot pos- 
sibly have still been attractive to strangers." This has 
already been fully answered in the preliminary remarks 
to this general section, under the head of No Discrep- 
ancies, No. 9. In the longevity of the patriarchs Sa- 
rah may not have been devoid of personal charms even 
at the age of ninety ; or Abimelech may have been 
prompted by the desire to form a connection with Abra- 
ham, who was the head of a powerful clan. And, at any 
rate, no argument can thence be drawn for a diversity of 
documents. Why may not the original writer have be- 
lieved what, on the critics' own hypothesis, it is manifest 
that E believed ? 

He further argues that this chapter can neither be 
from P nor from J. Not from P, according to whom 
Abraham dwelt in Hebron (xxiii. 2, 19 ; xxv. 9 ; xxxv. 27), 
and there is no trace of his dwelling in Gerar or Beersheba ; 
and not from J, since he has the parallel narrative, xii. 
10-20. But there is no inconsistency between this chap- 
ter and the passages referred by the critics to P and to 
J ; and no reason why it could not have been written by 
the common author of those passages. That Abraham 
was at Hebron at the time of Sarah's death creates no 
presumption that he had not been at Gerar at the time 



ABRAHAM IN GERAR (CH. XX.) 255 

of this occurrence thirty-seven years before. And accord- 
ing to the critical partition of the text, Abraham's abode 
in Hebron is spoken of not by P only, but by J as well 
(xiii. 18). 

The incident related in this chapter bears a striking re- 
semblance to that in xii. 10-20. The critics assume that 
such an affair could occur but once, and hence conclude 
that these can only be variant accounts of the same oc- 
currence by two different writers. It is obvious, however, 
that upon the critical hypothesis E regarded them as dis- 
tinct events, differing in time, place, and several particu- 
lars. And it is difficult to see why the original writer 
may not have been of the same mind, and inserted both 
in his narrative. There are numerous indications that 
this was really the case. It is distinctly declared (ver. 
13) that Abraham had concerted with Sarah to have her 
pass as his sister in more than one place ; and the men- 
tion of such an arrangement would be unmeaning if it 
had not been actually carried into effect. The brevity of 
the statement in ver. 2 leaves the conduct of both Abra- 
ham and Abimelech unexplained, and is an implied ref- 
erence to a previous narrative of the same sort, in which 
the motives of the actors are more fully stated. The 
writer assumes that his readers will understand the situ- 
tion from the like instance before related, and so thinks 
it unnecessary to go into particulars. " From thence " 
(ver. 1) is an explicit reference to a locality mentioned 
before, which can only be "the oaks of Mamre " (xviii. 1 
J), i.e., Hebron (xiii. 18 J, xxiii. 19 P). In xxi. 32, 
which is universally confessed to be a continuation of 
the narrative in ch. xx., and by the same hand, Abraham 
is in Beersheba, just as he is in the following verse (xxi. 
33 J), and his presence there is nowhere else explained. 
And in ver. 34 J speaks of his sojourn in the land of the 
Philistines, where he was sojourning in ch. xx.,for Gerar 



256 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

(vs. 1, 2) was the capital of the Philistine territory ; the 
king of Gerar was the king of the Philistines (xxvi. 1). 
The nocturnal revelation (vs. 3, 6) has its parallels in 
J (xxvi. 24 ; xxviii. 16), and in a section marked by 
" Jehovah," though its reference to J is arbitrarily dis- 
puted (xv. 1, 12, seq.). The language of Abimelech (vs. 
9, 10) recalls that of Pharaoh (xii. 18) ; and Abraham's 
reply, ver. 11, resembles xii. 12. The representation of 
the moral character of the people (ver. 11) corresponds 
with xv. 16. There is no discrepancy between ver. 12 
and xi. 29 (J) or 31 (P). As Abraham's wife, Sarah was 
Terah's daughter-in-law ; the mention of the fact that she 
was also his daughter was purposely reserved for this 
place, that the difficulty might not be solved before it 
had arisen. "God caused me to wander" (ver. 13) cor- 
responds precisely with xii. 1, the injunction to go to a 
land not yet disclosed. Abraham's intercession (ver. 17) 
for Abimelech is like that for Sodom (xviii. 23 sqq.). 

The transaction here recorded also falls precisely into 
line with both the antecedent and subsequent history 
of Abraham, which is just a continued succession of tri- 
als for testing and enhancing his faith in the promise of 
God, increasing in intensity until the climax is reached, 
and a period put to them all in ch. xxii. And it fits ex- 
actly into the situation, coming as it does after the defi- 
nite promise of xvii. 19, 21, and its gracious renewal at 
that visit of unequalled condescension (xviii. 10), but be- 
fore the conception and birth of the promised child (xxi. 
2). All is now put in peril by the threatened loss of Sarah, 
which yet was averted by immediate divine interference. 
This was one more step in that discipline with which the 
patriarch's life was filled, and that experience of almighty 
guardianship by which he was trained to implicit confi- 
dence in, and obedience to, the word of a covenant-keep- 
ing God, and thus fitted for the unique position of the 



ABRAHAM IN GERAR (CH. XX.) 257 

father of the faithful and the head of the chosen race 
(xviii. 18, 19). 

The contention that ch. xx. requires more time than 
can be allowed in the interval between ch. xviii. and xxi. 
rests upon a misinterpretation of vs. 17, 18, as though 
the infliction there spoken of was sterility, which could 
only become apparent after the lapse of a considerable pe- 
riod. But Abimelech needed to be healed as well as his 
wife and maid-servants, and he had thus been hindered 
from approaching Sarah (ver. 6). The affection accord- 
ingly was one that prevented sexual intercourse, and so 
was an obstacle to conception and birth. 1 

1 Ilgen (Urkunden, p. 413) infers that Sarah must have remained in 
Abimelech's palace at least two years. And Vater adds that room can- 
not be found before ch. xxi. for all that took place in ch. xviii. -xx. To 
this latter suggestion Ewald very properly replies " that the author no- 
where says that the affair of Lot's daughters (xix. 29-38) took place at 
this time ; he merely attaches it to the story of Sodom, as that was a 
convenient place." His treatment of the occurrence at Gerar in the 
same connection is so admirable that it may be repeated here. I quote 
from his maiden publication (Die Komposition der Genesis kritisch un- 
tersucht, 1823, p. 228 sqq.). " Abraham is still (i.e., in ch. xix.) at the 
oaks of Mamre, as the writer had first stated (xiii. 18), and then referred 
back to this statement (xiv. 13, and xviii. 1). Now he removes to Ge- 
rar, and although the expression ' from thence ' (xx. 1) does not de- 
fine the starting-point of his journey, it refers to what preceded, and the 
direction from Mamre to Gerar is so plainly indicated by the added 
word ' the south,' that it is an adequate substitute for the name ' oaks 
of Mamre.' Abraham says of his wife at the outset ' she is my sister ' 
(ver. 2). In and of itself this is quite unintelligible; and a Hebrew 
narrator would certainly have told this more plainly, if he had not on 
alike occasion stated in more detail what moved Abraham to it (xii. 
11-13). Was it necessary now to repeat this here ? The rapidity with 
which he hastens on to the fact itself shows what he presupposes in 
the reader. But while in the first event of the kind(ch. xii.), in Egypt, 
the narrator briefly mentions Pharaoh's gifts and plagues, he sets forth 
in more detail the cause of Abraham's conduct. The reader might cer- 
tainly be surprised that the same thing could happen twice to Abraham 
The narrator is conscious of this ; and in order to remove every doubt 
of this sort, which might so easily arise, he lets Abraham clear up the 
17 



258 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

The identity of language, the intimate connection of 
this passage with the context in which it stands, and the 
direct allusions to previous portions of the narrative 
demonstrate that this chapter cannot belong to a distinct 
and independent document, but is a continuation of the 
preceding. And the fact that Elohim in an ordinary 
historical narrative is associated with precisely the same 
style and diction that is found in Jehovah passages an- 
nuls the alleged marks of discrimination urged by critics 
in previous portions of Genesis, which are thus shown 
to be due to a difference, not of writer but of theme. 
This chapter not only affords no argument for a third 
document E, but renders decisive testimony against it, 
and against the hypothesis of documents in general. 

Elohim is used throughout this chapter because Abim- 
elech, who is prominent in it is a Gentile. It is no 
objection to this that Abimelech uses the name "Je- 
hovah " in speaking to Isaac (xxvi. 28, 29) ; for he there 
means specifically Isaac's God, who had so signally 
blessed him ; just as in Ex. xviii., although Elohim is 
prevailingly used in describing Jethro's visit to Moses, 

puzzle in what lie says to Abimelech (vs. 11-13). Thus the narrator 
himself meets every objection that could be made, and by the words 
' when God caused me to wander from my father's house ' (ver. 13), 
he looks back so plainly over all thus far related, and at the same time 
indicates so exactly the time when he first thought of passing his wife 
off as his sister everywhere in foreign lands, that this can only be ex- 
plained from the previous narrative in ch. xii. Moreover, the circum- 
stances are different in the two narratives. Here Abimelech makes 
Abraham a variety of presents after he understood the affair ; there 
Pharaoh before he understood it. Here God himself appears, there he 
simply punishes. Here Abraham is called a prophet (ver. 7), as he 
could not have been at once denominated when God had but just called 
him. The circumstances, the issue, and the description differ in many 
respects, and thus attest that this story is quite distinct from the former 
one." In a foot-note Ewald makes light of the objection from Sarah's 
age, and appeals to similar instances, which I have no means of verify- 
ing. 



ABEAHAM IN GERAR (CH. XX.) 259 

Jehovah is employed in vs. 9-11, where Jethro refers 
specifically to the God of Israel in distinction from all 
other gods. And in the book of Jonah the mariners, 
who had vainly cried each unto his god to quell the 
storm (i. 5), turned at length to the God of Jonah and 
prayed to and worshipped Jehovah (vs. 14, 16). Elohim 
is construed as a plural in xx. 13, in accommodation to 
pagan ideas and forms of speech and not as a character- 
istic of E ; cf . Ex. xxxii. 4 ; 1 Sam. iv. 8 ; for in passages 
assigned to E the same construction ordinarily prevails 
as is usual elsewhere. The plural is used in Gen. xxxv. 7 
because a vision of both God and angels is referred to ; 
Ex. xxii. 8 (E. V., ver. 9) is in a code of laws, which in 
the opinion of the critics was not written by E, but copied 
by him into his document ; Deut. v. 23 (E. V. ver. 26) is 
referred to D ; and in Josh. xxiv. 19 the plural construc- 
tion of Elohim occurs in conjunction with the name Je- 
hovah. The use of this construction warrants no imputa- 
tion upon the strictness of the monotheism of E ; for like 
constructions occur in the most rigorously monotheistic 
contexts, e.g., Deut. v. 23 (26) ; 2 Sam. vii. 22, 23 ; Jer. 
xxiii. 36 ; cf . in P, Gen. i. 26, and in J, xi. 7. 

" Jehovah " in xx. 18 is not traceable to a different 
writer, whether J (Knobel, Kayser) or R, as Hupfeld and 
most critics assume. It is Jehovah's interference on 
behalf of Abraham's wife that is there described. The 
name is, therefore, strictly appropriate. 

MARKS OF E 

1. rtafcj maid-servant (ver. 17) occurs besides in pas- 
sages referred to E (xxi. 10, 12, 13 ; xxx. 3 ; xxxi. 33 ; 
Ex. ii. 5) ; in the fourth commandment (Ex. xx. 10) and 
in the Covenant Code, supposed by the critics not to 
be the work of E (Ex. xxi. 7, 20, 26, 27, 32 ; xxiii. 12) ; 



260 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

also in P (Lev. xxv. 6, 44 bis) ; and several times in 
Deuteronomy. Notwithstanding the fact that this word 
is by no means peculiar to E, it is claimed that E uses it 
instead of HHSTSJ, which is employed by J and P. But 
tt%ti occurs in E (Gen. xx. 14 ; xxx. 18), and it is only 
by the questionable device of cutting a clause out of an 
E context and assigning it to P or J, that the admission 
is escaped that E uses it also in xxix. 24, 29 ; xxx. 4, 7. 
Both words occur in this chapter, and are discriminat- 
ingly used. praJJ maid-servant, as a concubine of Abime- 
lech (ver. 17), is clearly distinguished from HHDttJ woman- 
servant, given for bond-service to Abraham (ver. 14). 
That the former is a less servile term than the latter 
plainly appears also from 1 Sam. xxv. 41. This distinc- 
tion is clearly stated by Ilgen (p. 399), who renders them 
respectively " maid " and " slave." The assertion that 
nhs© (ver. 14) is a textual error, or that the clause "men- 
servants and women-servants " is an addition by E, is 
altogether groundless. 

2. nnb (for nb) heart (vs. 5, 6) ; besides in E (xxxi. 26 ; 
Ex. xiv. 5 ; Josh. xiv. 7 ; xxiv. 23) ; in J (Lev. xix. 17, 
xxvi. 36, 41, so Dill. ; Num. xv. 39 ; Josh. vii. 5) ; D 
(Josh. v. 1 ; xxii. 5 ; xxiii. 14) ; Ed (Josh. ii. 11). 

3. bbsnn to pray (vs. 7, 17) ; besides in Hexateuch, 
only Num. xi. 2 ; xxi. 7 E ; Deut. ix. 20, 26 D. 

4. Dibn dream (vs. 3, 6) ; besides in E (xxxi. 10, 11, 
24 ; xxxvii. 5, 6, 8, 9 bis, 10, 19, 20 ; xl. 5 bis, 8, 9 bis, 
16 ; xli. 7, 8, 11 bis, 12, 15 bis, 17, 22, 25, 26, 32 ; xlii. 
9) ; in J (Num. xii. 6 ; so Dillmann). The occurrence of 
Elohim in connection with the mention of dreams is due 
not to the peculiarity of a writer (E), but to the nature 
of the case. No dreams are mentioned in the Hexa- 
teuch, but those which are prophetic. When God re- 
vealed himself to those not of the chosen race, of course 
Elohim and not Jehovah would be used, and the method 



ABRAHAM IN GERAR (CH. XX.) 261 

was uniformly by dreams, as the lowest form of divine 
communication ; thus to Abimelech (xx. 3, 6) ; Laban 
(xxxi. 24) ; the butler and baker of Pharaoh (xl. 5 sqq.) ; 
and Pharaoh himself (xli. 1 sqq.). So also to Jacob, 
when on the point of leaving Canaan for Paddan-aram 
(xxviii. 12) ; or for Egypt (xlvi. 2) ; and in Paddan-aram 
(xxxi. 11) ; and to Joseph in his childhood (xxxvii. 5 
sqq.). Elohim does not occur in the narrative of Jo- 
seph's dreams ; nevertheless these are by the critics re- 
ferred to E under the rule that all dreams must be given 
to E, a rule which sufficiently explains why no dreams 
are to be found in J. But J likewise speaks of Jehovah 
revealing himself to Isaac at night (xxvi. 24) ; to Jacob 
in his sleep (xxviii. 16) ; and similarly to Abram (xv. 1, 
12, 13). The futility of the critical attempts to refer 
these communications made to Abram to E and E, has 
already been shown. The revelation to Abram (xv. 1) is 
called a vision, a higher form of divine communication 
than a dream, just as that to Jacob (xlvi. 2) is called by 
E. That no divine dreams are granted to Gentiles in J 
paragraphs is for the sufficient reason that Elohim is 
necessarily used in such a connection. If God speaks 
directly to men in J, so he does in E to Abraham (xxi. 
12 ; xxii. 1) ; and to Jacob (xxxv. 1), without its being- 
said that it was in a dream. In P, according to the di- 
vision made by the critics, God reveals himseK but twice 
in the entire patriarchal period — once to Abraham (ch. 
xvii.), and once to Jacob (xxxv. 9), in spite of the explicit 
mention made (Ex. ii. 24 ; vi. 3 P) that he had appeared 
to Isaac and covenanted with him ; which is a positive 
proof that their division is at fault. It has been said 
that according to E God appears neither formally nor 
visibly, but only in dreams. And yet, if we may believe 
Dillmann, it is E who records God's wrestling with Jacob 
(xxxii. 24-31). And he adds that Wellhausen's " argu- 



262 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

merits to the contrary prove nothing or rest on mere 
postulates." 

5. b$ nft&J (ver. 2), or b nftfcj (ver. 13) say concerning. No 
other example is adduced from the Hexateuch. In Num. 
xxiii. 23, referred to in Ewald's "Hebrew Grammar," § 
217, c, the expression has not this sense, and is besides 
attributed by Wellhausen to J. 

6. "ji^g}. innocency (ver. 5) ; nowhere else in the Hexa- 
teuch. 

BIRTH OF ISAAC AND DISMISSAL OF ISHMAEL (CH. XXI. 1-21) 
CRITICAL PERPLEXITY 

The opening verses of this chapter have given some 
trouble to the critics, and have been very variously ap- 
portioned. Astruc and Eichhorn were content to follow 
the indications of the divine names throughout, and so 
assigned the first verse and the last two verses of the 
chapter to J, and all the rest to P. As, however, ver. 1 
is intimately related to ver. 2, Gramberg assigned it also 
to P, assuming that " Jehovah " in each clause had orig- 
inally been "Elohim," and that the verse was an apt 
specimen of P's diffuseness. Knobel separated the two 
clauses of ver. 1, and gave the first to J, being thus able 
to retain the Jehovah of that clause, while contending 
that in the second clause it had been substituted for 
Elohim ; P's portion of the chapter was limited by him 
to vs. lb-5, all the remainder being transferred to J, 
who here, as in ch. xx., was supposed to have made use 
of an earlier source characterized by its employment of 
Elohim. Hupfeld converted this earlier source into an 
independent document E, assigning to it vs. 6, 9-32, and 
giving vs. 7, 8, to J. Noldeke pointed out that Y?3gt^ in 
his old age, ver. 2 (P) was identical with the expression 
in ver. 7 (J), and that consequently it must have been 



BIRTH OF ISAAC, ETC. (CH. XXI. 1-21) 263 

inserted there by E. But neither is rnn conceived re- 
garded as a word belonging to P ; hence Wellhausen in- 
sisted on limiting P's portion of the chapter to vs. 2b-5, 
and giving ver. 1 to R, who thus effected the transition 
from the subject of the preceding chapter to the account 
of the birth of Isaac. The consequence of this is that 
the paragraph referred to P begins in the middle of a 
sentence, and that J does not record the birth of Isaac 
at all. Dillmann, in the last edition of his Genesis, seeks 
to remedy these incongruities by the artificial process of 
splitting the first and second verses in two, and uniting 
their alternate clauses, thus giving to J vs. la, 2a, 7 ; to 
P lb, 2b-5 ; and to E vs. 6, 8-21. Budde 1 carries the 
splitting process still further by dividing ver. 6 in two, 
and transposing its second clause to the end of ver. 7. 
But even thus he lags behind Ilgen in the work of dis- 
integration, who long ago divided ver. 7 as well as ver. 6 
between J and E. But in no one of these methods of 
partition does E make mention of the birth of Isaac. 
Boehmer endeavors to relieve this difficulty, and to allow 
each document a share in this announcement 2 by assign- 
ing to J vs. 1, 2b, 7 ; to P vs. 2a, c, 4, 5 ; and to E vs. 3, 
6,8. 

But all this critical toil is as fruitless as it is unneces- 
sary. The whole passage is so closely bound together as 
neither to require nor to permit partition. " Jehovah " 
in each clause of ver. 1 forbids the assignment of both or 
either to an Elohist writer without an arbitrary change 
of text, which, instead of contributing to the support of 
the hypothesis, is an inference from the hypothesis. 
Moreover, this verse is not a doublet, as the critics claim, 
suggestive of two distinct sources. It is no unmeaning 

1 Urgeschichte, pp. 215, 224. 

2 Ilgen accomplished the same thing after a fashion by giving B ver. 
la, J lb, and P ver. 2. 



264 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

repetition, but an emphatic asseveration, in which the 
second clause is an advance upon the first. It is first 
stated that Jehovah visited Sarah as he had said (see 
xviii. 10) ; then the purpose for which he visited her is 
added, viz., to fulfil the promise previously given. The 
mention of a divine visitation is usually followed by an 
explicit statement of its design ; so Gen. 1. 24 ; Ex. iii. 
16, 17 ; xxxii. 34 ; and in these cases no one suspects dif- 
ferent writers. Delitzsch remarks that the structure of 
ver. 1 is identical with that of ii. 5a. 

Wellhausen denies that the author of ch. xviii. could 
have had any share in this account of Isaac's birth, be- 
cause according to xviii. 10, 14, Jehovah promised to re- 
visit Sarah in Hebron ; but the fact is that no locality 
is mentioned there. Dillmann insists that according to 
both J and P Isaac must have been born in Hebron, as 
they knew nothing of the journey to the south in ch. 
xx. (E) ; a discrepancy which, like most of those discov- 
ered by the critics, is of their own manufacture, and does 
not exist in the text as it lies before us. 

The critics are here in a dilemma which has perplexed 
them not a little. If ver. 2a is given to P as by Dillmann 
(2nd), J makes no mention of Isaac's birth, which is the 
event to which every promise from ch. xii. onward had 
pointed, and for which all the history of Abraham up to 
this time had been preparatory. If it is given to J as by 
Dillmann (3rd), P goes on to speak of the naming of the 
child and his circumcision without having told of his birth. 
And even if " Jehovah " in ver. lb be changed to " Elohim " 
to accommodate the critics, and this be given to P, he 
still merely says that God fulfilled his promise to Sarah 
without saying what that promise was. It is easy to say 
that Isaac's birth was mentioned in both documents, but 
B has only preserved one account of it. But there is no 
proof that such a duplicate statement ever existed. The 



THE BIRTH OF ISAAC, ETC. (CH. XXI. 1-21) 265 

critics' assertion that it did brings no support to their 
hypothesis, for it is itself unsupported, and is a mere in- 
ference from the hypothesis which it is adduced to sus- 
tain. And it is an inference which imputes the most 
extraordinary and unaccountable inconsistency to the re- 
dactor. In ver. 1 he is supposed to have brought 
together two clauses identical in signification, one or the 
other of which is therefore quite superfluous, because he 
found them in different documents and felt bound to re- 
tain them. He retains xix. 29 from P, though in the 
opinion of the critics it adds nothing to what he had al- 
ready related in full from J. He records Noah's entry 
into the ark twice, once from J and then from P, thus 
overloading his narrative in these and other conspicuous 
instances with identical repetitions for no other reason 
than because the same thing was recorded in each of his 
sources. Why does he not do the same in this matter 
which is evidently regarded in both documents as of the 
greatest moment ? 

" Sarah bore a son at the set time of which God had 
spoken to him " (ver. 2) is a plain allusion to xvii. 19a, 
21 ; the name Isaac (ver. 3) to xvii. 19 ; his being circum- 
cised the eighth day (ver. 4) to xvii. 12 ; the age of Abra- 
ham (ver. 5) to xvii. 1, 24. The repetition of " Sarah " 
four times in vs. 1-3, and the reiteration of the statement 
that she was the mother of the child are not due to 
the diffuse style of the writer, but to the emphasis laid 
upon the fact, as in ch. xvii. The name " Elohim " (vs. 
2, 4, 6) is adopted from ch. xvii., which is so prominently 
referred to. The promise was made and was now ful- 
filled by Jehovah in the character of God Almighty (xvii. 
1) ; the event was, and was understood by both Abraham 
and Sarah to be, not the product of natural causes, but 
of divine omnipotent intervention. 

The contention that ver. 6 contains a new explanation 



266 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

of the name of Isaac, or as Ilgen and Budde will have it, 
two separate explanations of it, differing from those in 
xvii. 17 P and xviii. 12 J, and that it must on this ac- 
count be referred to a third writer, E, is unfounded. 
These several allusions to the significance of the name 
are entirely harmonious and are not suggestive of a di- 
versity of writers. Abraham's and Sarah's laugh of in- 
credulity is exchanged for a laugh of joy. Nor does the 
additional utterance of Sarah (ver. 7), though distinct 
from the preceding (ver. 6), and separately introduced by 
the words "And she said," require or justify the as- 
sumption that this is from another document any more 
than the three utterances of the angel of Jehovah to 
Hagar (xvi. 9-11), which few of the critics think of sun- 
dering. 

DIVISION IMPOSSIBLE 

Hupfeld claims that the narrative of the expulsion of 
Hagar and Ishmael (vs. 9-21), which is assigned to E, 
stands in no relation to the account of Isaac's birth, 
which he divides between J and P. But besides the ob- 
vious intimate connection between the two events, the 
narratives are bound together by ver. 8, which Hupfeld 
correctly attaches to what precedes as its proper se- 
quence, and other critics with equal propriety attach to 
what follows as indicating its occasion. It was at the 
feast to celebrate the weaning of Isaac that Ishmael 
made himself so obnoxious as to be sent away. 

The critics allege that vs. 8-21 is a variant of xvi. 4-14 
by a different writer, but without the slightest reason. 
The two events are quite distinct, and each is appropriate 
in its place. In ch. xvi. Hagar was treated harshly be- 
cause of her contemptuous behavior toward her mistress 
before the birth of Ishmael, and ran away of her own 
accord, but was sent back by an angel. In this place 



ETC. (CH. XXI. 1-21) 267 

Hagar and Iskmael were finally dismissed by Abraham, 
and an angel appeared to succor them in their distress. 
That " Jehovah " is used throughout the former passage, 
and " Elohim " in this, is due not to a difference of 
writers but of situation. There Hagar was regarded as a 
member of Abraham's household, and as such still under 
Jehovah's protection. Here she and Ishmael are finally 
separated from the patriarch and his family, and are 
henceforth disconnected from the chosen race. Elohim 
is, therefore, used with Ishmael as with Lot after he was 
finally cut off from proximity to, and all connection with, 
Abraham (xix. 29 sqq.). 

The attempt to create a discrepancy in respect to the 
age of Ishmael is not successful. It is claimed that 
while Ishmael, according to xvi. 16 ; xxi. 5, was at least 
sixteen years old, he is in this narrative represented as 
a young child needing to be carried. Dillmann effects 
this result by accepting the erroneous rendering of ver. 
14 by the LXX. in place of the Hebrew text, as Ilgen 
had done before him, and reading " put the child on her 
shoulder," which, according to the text as it stands, was 
not done. This, as Jerome long since remarked, would 
bring this verse into variance with ver. 18, where Hagar 
is bidden to lift up the sick boy and hold him with her 
hand. Ex quo manif estum est, eum qui tenetur non oneri 
matri fuisse, sed comitem. To hold him by the hand is 
a very different thing from carrying him. 

It is also inconsistent with ver. 9, where pJTOa cannot 
denote the innocent laughter of a young child. It is in- 
conceivable that the writer could have intended to charge 
Sarah with being so seriously provoked by such a cause. 
It must mean " mocking," and was so understood (Gal. 
iv. 29) ; but this is the act of a boy of some age. See 
above, No Discrepancies, No. 8, page 166. 

Yater remarks upon this passage, " We have no reason 



268 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

indeed to presuppose a connection in the accounts of dif- 
ferent fragments, but neither have we any reason to seek 
contradictions where there are none." The fragment 
hypothesis, in the interest of which Vater wrote, is now 
universally abandoned in consequence of the abundant 
proofs of a close connection between all parts of the 
Pentateuch, which it persistently denied. But the preva- 
lent disposition of the divisive critics " to seek contradic- 
tions where there are none," in order to justify their as- 
sumption of different documents is really destructive of 
their own hypothesis ; for it imputes an incredible blind- 
ness to the redactor who could combine such glaring 
contradictions in what he offers to his readers as a con- 
sistent and credible history. 

In ver. 16 Hagar is said to have lifted up her voice and 
wept. Whereupon it is immediately added (ver. 17), 
And God heard the voice of the lad. This has been re- 
garded as an incongruity, implying a diversity of writers 
(Knobel), or an error in the text (LXX., the child lifted 
up his voice and wept). But every writer can presume 
upon the intelligence of his readers to supply what is so 
evident as not to require mention. The cries of the child 
were natural under the circumstances, and are here im- 
plied, though not expressly stated. And as Dillmann 
suggests, the repetition of the words, " she sat over against 
him" (ver. 16b), can only be for the purpose of intro- 
ducing a clause of which Hagar is the subject. 

Dillmann observes that the name of the child is not 
mentioned throughout the paragraph (vs. 9-21), and con- 
jectures that E must have said after vs. 17, 18, that the 
child was called Ishmael God hears, because God had 
then heard his voice ; and that B omitted it. It is re- 
markable how often the divisive hypothesis leads the 
critics to the belief that something ought to be in the 
text which is not there. There has been no omission 



THE BIETH OF ISAAC, ETC. (CH. XXI. 1-21) 269 

here. The name does not occur in vs. 19-21 any more 
than in the preceding verses. The naming of the child 
and the reason of it had already been stated (xvi. 11, 15) ; 
and the allusion to its signification (xxi. 17), like that in 
xvii. 20, is suggestive not of different writers but rather 
of all emanating from one common source. 

MAKES OF P 

Dillmann assigns to P, vs. lb, 2b-5, " on account of the 
back reference of vs. 2b and 4 toch. xvii.," which is freely 
admitted; "the statement of age, ver. 4," but see ch. xii. 
1-9, Marks of P No. (5) ; " the diffuseness, ver. 3," there 
is here, however, no needless superfluity of words, but 
only emphatic repetition, as above explained, and but 
one instance of alleged characteristic diction, viz. : 

1. "The form fi&pa ver. 5," the construct state of ntftt 
a hundred. The fact is that both forms of this numeral 
occur repeatedly in passages assigned to P, to which, as 
a rule, statements of age and enumerations are attributed. 
This number occurs in J but twice, vi. 3 (120 years), xxvi. 
12 (100 measures), and in E of but three things, Joseph's 
age, 1. 22, 26 (110 years), Joshua's age, Josh. xxiv. 29 
(110 years), and the price of a field at Shechem, Gen. 
xxxiii. 19 ; Josh. xxiv. 32 (100 kesitas) ; in each of these 
cases the absolute form HStt chances to be used. But 
the same form is also found in like cases in P, e.g., Gen. 
xvii. 17 (100 years) ; xxiii. 1 (127 years) ; Deut. xxxiv. 7 
(120 years), and in a large proportion of those instances 
in which the numeral is attached to weights or measures. 
There is not the slightest reason, therefore, for assuming 
a diversity of usage in respect to this word. 

MAKES OF J 

Dillmann says, " J, too, as is natural, narrated the birth 
of Isaac in what he wrote, but E has adopted nothing 



270 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

from- his account except vs. la, 2a, 7 ; at least it is quite 
inconceivable that ver. la could have been added along- 
side of lb by R of his own motion and without finding it 
in J ; in vs. 2b and 7 TOpfb in his old age, points to J, 
and ver. 7 is a doublet of ver. 6." He also urges the 
back reference in ver. la to xviii. 10 sqq. (which is not 
disputed), and that ^J?S visited is decisive against the au- 
thorship of P, who says instead *OT remembered. 

But it has been shown above that there is no super- 
fluous repetition in ver. 1 ; and that there is no reason 
for assuming that vs. 6 and 7 are by different writers. 
And the words here adduced supply no argument for 
critical partition. 

1. "JJ5B visited (ver. 1), occurs in this sense besides in 
E (1. H, 25 ; Ex. iii. 16 ; iv. 31 ; xiii. 19 ; xx. 5 ; Num. 
xvi. 29) ; in E (Num. xiv. 18) ; in J (Ex. xxxii. 34 ; xxxiv. 
7 ; and, according to Dillmann, Lev. xviii. 25). It is 
not easy to see on what grounds this last verse is denied 
to P. It stands in what he considers a mixed passage of 
J and P, and between two verses which he gives to P, 
and why it is separated from them does not appear. 
And *ot remembered (said of God), is not an expression 
peculiar to P. It occurs in verses attributed to P (Gen. 
viii. 1 ; ix. 15, 16 ; xix. 29 ; xxx. 22 ; Ex. ii. 24 ; vi. 5) ; but 
also in J (Ex. xxxii. 13 ; Lev. xxvi. 42, 45, so Dillmann). 
And in Gen. xxx. 22 the clause containing it is cut out of 
a J and E connection on account of this word alone. 

2. D^]?t old age (vs. 2, 7), occurs but twice besides, 
viz., xliv. 20 J, and xxxvii. 3, about which critics are di- 
vided : Knobel gives it to P ; Kuenen and Wellhausen 
to E ; and Dillmann to J. 

MARKS OF E 

To E is assigned vs. 6, 8-21, and it is contended that 
" in spite of Elohim this is not from P, whom the ap- 



THE BIRTH OF ISAAC, ETC. (CH. XXI. 1-21) 271 

pearance of the divine angel (ver. 17) does not suit." The 
reason of the absence of angels from P is that the critical 
lines of partition exclude this document from the body of 
the narrative, and the occurrence of the word ' angel ' in 
a paragraph is held to be sufficient to prove that it is not 
from P. "Nor the explanation of the name of Isaac;" 
but this has already been shown to be consistent with 
that of ch. xvii. " Nor the sending away of Hagar and 
Ishmael ; " it is alleged that this is inconsistent with the 
presence of Ishmael at his father's burial (xxv. 9 P). 
But it is manifest that he might easily return on such an 
occasion and for such a purpose. It is besides expressly 
stated in that immediate connection (xxv. 6) that all the 
sons of Abraham's concubines were thus dismissed dur- 
ing his lifetime. And whatever disposition the critics 
may choose to make of this verse, the redactor must 
have thought it to be in harmony with the statement im- 
mediately after, that " his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried 
him." " Nor the age of Ishmael at the time ; " but it 
has been shown that there is no discrepancy in regard 
to it. " Expressions like God teas with him (ver. 20), 
hearken unto the voice o/(ver. 12), rose up early in the 
morning (ver. 14), it teas grievous in his eyes (vs. 11, 12), 
flha cast out (ver. 10), lb* child (vs. 8, 14 sqq.), are for- 
eign to P." The simple explanation of the absence of 
these and other familiar words and phrases from P is 
that only the most stinted share in the narrative por- 
tion of the Pentateuch is accorded to P, while the great 
bulk of it is divided between J and E. And these 
expressions are as freely used in J as in E. They 
are not the peculiar characteristic of any one writer, but 
are the common possession of all who use the lan- 
guage. 

1. God tvas with him (ver. 20) ; in J (xxvi. 24, 28 ; 
xxviii. 15 ; xxxix. 2, 21). 



272 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

2. bipS mid hearken unto the voice o/(ver. 12); in J 
(xxvii. 8/43 ; Ex. iv. 1 ; Num. xxi. 3). 

3. *i£2S D^SEn rose up early in the morning (ver. 14). 
See ck. xviii. 1— xix. 28, Marks of J, No. 26. 

4. ^23 VT} to be grievous in the eyes (vs. 11, 12) ; in 
J (xxxviii. 7, 10 ; xlviii. 17 ; Num. xxii. 34 ; xxxii. 13) ; 
and once in P (Gen. xxviii. 8). 

5. una cast out (ver. 10) ; in J (iii. 24 ; iv. 14 ; Ex. ii. 
17 ; xii. 39 ; xxxiv. 11 ; Lev. xxi. 7, 14 (so Dillmann) ; 
Num. xxii. 11). 

6. ^ child (vs. 8, 14 sqq.) ; in J (iv. 23 ; xxxii. 23, 
E. Y. ver. 22; xxxiii. 1 sqq.; xliv. 20). It is noticeable 
that ^ child, and n?3 lad, are here used interchangea- 
bly of Ishmael ; the former, vs. 14, 15, 16 ; the latter, vs. 
12, 17 bis, 18, 19, 20. Knobel regarded the former as 
the language of J, and the latter as that of the older 
source from which he supposed him to have drawn this 
narrative. On the assumption of this double authorship 
he likewise explained the twofold mention of Ishmael's 
abode in vs. 20 and 21. Other critics refer the whole of 
vs. 8-21 to E, and thus admit that the use of two differ- 
ent terms to express the same thing is not necessarily an 
indication of different writers. The doublet in vs. 20, 
21, is also passed over in silence as void of significance. 1 

It is argued that this paragraph must be referred to an 
author distinct from J on account of " the divine name ; " 
but it has been shown that the employment of Elohim 
here accords with biblical usage. "The variant explana- 
tion of the name of Isaac, ver. 6 ; " but this has been 
shown to be in harmony with xviii. 12, 13, as well as 
xvii. 17, 19. " And above all, that vs. 9-21 is a variant 
of the story about Hagar and Ishmael told by J in ch. 

1 Hupfeld (Quellen, p. 30) doubtfully conjectures that ver. 21 belongs 
to P, and has been transferred by R from its original position after xxv. 
12. I am not aware that any other critic has adopted this view. 



ABRAHAM AT BEERSHEBA (CH. XXI. 22-34) 273 

xvi.; " but this is not the case ; they are distinct occur- 
rences. The additional proofs offered for its reference 
to a writer E, distinct from J and P, are equally nugatory. 
These are : 

7. " The locality in the Neghebh (South), cf. xx. 1 ; " 
but ver. 33 J, Abraham is in that region, of which the 
paragraphs assigned to E afford the only explanation. 

8. iron bottle vs. 14, 15, 19 ; nowhere else in the Hexa- 
teuch ; but once besides in the Old Testament. 

9. nrrj to shoot (ver. 16) ; nowhere else in the Old Tes- 
tament. 

10. ntjg i-Qh archer (ver. 20) ; nowhere else in the Old 
Testament. This is, moreover, a needless departure both 
from the Massoretic points and the usual meaning of the 
words. The text has tW^ PD'"I as he gretu up, an archer. 

11. S7J38 maid-servant (vs. 10, 12, 13). See ch. xx., 
Marks of E, No. 1. Hagar, who had been Sarah's bond- 
maid, nnSE, is now, as Abraham's concubine, regarded as 
in a less servile position, and is hence called an rv»J$. 
See Diction of ch. xx., No. 14. 

12. ^b ttflB make a nation (vs. 13, 18) ; only besides in 
the Hexateuch xlvi. 3, referred by Dillmann to E, but by 
Kautzsch to E ; the same construction occurs in J xlvii. 
26, phb WW make a statute. 

13. pmn afar of (ver. 16) ; also in J (Ex. viii. 24, E. 
Y. ver. 28)." 

14. rnitf b2 on account of (ver. 11) ; also in J (xxvi. 
32) ; in Josh. xiv. 6 it occurs in the same clause with an 
expression of P ; apart from Gen. xxi. it occurs in but 
three passages that are referred to E (Ex. xviii. 8 ; Num. 
xii. 1 ; xiii. 24). 

ABRAHAM AT BEEBSHEBA (CH. XXI. 22-34) 

This paragraph records the covenant between Abime- 
lech and Abraham at Beersheba. Hupfeld here gives vs. 
18 



274 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

22-32 to E, and vs. 33, 34 to J, because of Elohim in vs. 
22, 23, and Jehovah in ver. 33. But ver. 33 cannot be 
separated from what precedes ; for the subject of the 
verbs in this verse is not expressed and must be derived 
from the foregoing verses, and Abraham's presence in 
Beersheba is not explained by anything that has pre- 
ceded in J, but only by the antecedent narrative, which 
is attributed to a different document. Kayser seeks to 
evade these difficulties by assuming that E's narrative 
was inserted by J in his document, to which he then at- 
taches vs. 33, 34. But this has found no favor with other 
critics, because it annuls their chief argument for a writer 
E in this passage distinct from J, viz., that derived from 
the alleged J parallel in xxvi. 26-33. Wellhausen tries 
to compass the same end in a different way, but one 
equally ineffectual. He gives ver. 33 to E; but this 
makes it necessary for him to alter the text by expunging 
the name " Jehovah," and even then the phrase " call on 
the name " of God remains, which is a stereotype J ex- 
pression. Hupfeld insists that ver. 34 contradicts ver. 
32, and cannot, therefore, be assigned to the same author. 
In ver. 34 Beersheba was in the land of the Philistines ; 
in ver. 32 it was not. He struggles to overcome the 
difficulties of the situation by still another method, that 
of transposing the text. He transfers xxii. 19b, "And 
Abraham dwelt," or, as he renders it, " settled in Beer- 
sheba," to this place, thus accounting for J's speaking 
of him as in this locality. He then transposes ver. 33 
with ver. 34, and so finds a subject for the verbs in 
the former. The arbitrary character of these changes of 
the text, for which no reason can be given except the ex- 
igencies of the hypothesis, sufficiently condemns them. 

Wellhausen fancies that he discovers a discrepancy 
between ver. 22 and ver. 32b, in virtue of which he 
claims that the latter cannot be by the author of the pre- 



ABRAHAM AT BEERSHEBA (CH. XXI. 22-34) 275 

ceding narrative, but must be attributed to E. In ver. 
32b Abimelech dwelt at some distance from Abraham ; 
in ver. 22 they lived presumably in the same place, for 
they held an interview without anything being said of 
Abimelech's having come away from home for this pur- 
pose. As if the reader had not already been informed 
(xx. 2) that the royal residence was at Gerar, while this 
transaction is expressly said to have taken place at Beer- 
sheba (ver. 31). And in numberless instances facts are 
implied without being expressly mentioned. God healed 
Abimelech and his wife and his maid-servants (xx. 17), 
though it had not been previously stated that they were 
sick. God heard the voice of Ishmael (xxi. 17), though 
it had not been before said that he had made a sound. 
It is implied (ver. 25), though not explicitly declared, 
that Abimelech restored the well to Abraham which his 
servants had violently taken away. 

Dillmann gives both ver. 32b and ver. 34 to E, thus 
disregarding Hupfeld's notion that they are mutually in- 
consistent and must be referred to distinct sources. The 
occurrence of the expression "land of the Philistines" 
in these verses, which is not found before in ch. xx. or 
xxi., is no reason for sundering them from the preceding 
narrative; for Gerar, where Abimelech resided, and of 
which he was king (xx. 2), was a Philistine city (xxvi. 1). 
It was quite natural, therefore, to speak of Abimelech's 
return to Gerar as a return to the land of the Philistines. 
And as Beersheba lay in the same region it could also 
be described as in the land of the Philistines. 

Dillmann had a more controlling reason, however, than 
these superficial trifles, for referring ver. 34 to K. It 
is evidently preparatory for ch. xxii. Abraham's long 
sojourn there explains how Isaac, whose birth is recorded 
xxi. 2, could be spoken of as he is in xxii. 6. But it 
would conflict with the hypothesis to allow a verse of 



276 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

J to be introductory to a narrative of E. Hence it is 
cut out of its connection and attributed to R. But the 
actual and obvious fact is that this verse is a link of con- 
nection, binding together what precedes and what follows 
as the product of the same pen. 

The divine names in this paragraph are in strict ac- 
cordance with ordinary Bible usage, and supply no rea- 
son for suspecting a diversity of documents. Thus we 
find Elohim in the interview with the Gentile king, 
Abimelech ; but when Abraham offers worship he calls 
on the name of Jehovah. 

MARKS OF E 

It is alleged that the diction is not that of P, which, 
considering the slight amount of narrative given to that 
document, is not surprising. But the words adduced in 
proof are all found in J. 

1. ion tiW show kindness (ver. 23). See ch. xviii., xix., 
Marks of J, No. 29. 

2. rP"Q n^3 make a covenant (vs. 27, 32). See ch. vi.- 
ix., Marks of P, No. 16. 

3. -nniPia in order that (ver. 30) ; in J (iii. 17 ; viii. 21 ; 
xii. 13, 16 ; xviii. 26, 29, 31, 32 ; xxvi. 24 ; xlvi. 34 ; Ex. xiii. 
8) ; in E (Ex. xix. 9) ; JE (Gen. xxvii. 4, 10, 19, 31 ; Ex. xx. 
20 bis) ; R (Ex. ix. 14, 16 bis). See ch. vi.-ix., Marks of 
J, No. 6; ch. xii. 10-20, Marks of J, No. 5. 

4. ^nba except (ver. 26). See ch. xviii., xix., Marks of J, 
No. 14 : ' 

5. nsn here (ver. 23) ; in J (xlv. 5, 13 ; Josh. viii. 20) ; 
in E (Gen. xlii. 15 ; xlv. 8 ; Josh, xviii. 6) ; JE (Josh. ii. 
2 ; iii. 9 ; R (Gen. xv. 16). 

6. Elohim (vs. 22, 23) ; explained above. 

7. TTpin reproved (ver. 25) ; in J (xxiv. 14, 44 ; Lev. 
xix. 17, so Dillmann) ; in E (Gen. xx. 16 ; xxxi. 37, 42 ). 



SACEIFICE OF ISAAC (CH. XXII. 1-19) 277 

8. God is with thee (ver. 22). See ch. xxi. 1-21, Marks 
of E, No. 1. 

9. nnitf bj? because of (ver. 25). See ch. xxi. 1-21, 
Marks of E, No. 14 

10. ip:i "pD offspring and posterity (ver. 23) ; neither 
word occurs again in the Hexateuch ; they are found but 
twice besides in the Old Testament, viz., Job xviii. 19 ; 
Isa. xiv. 22. 

" The connection " of this paragraph "with ch. xx. in 
respect of place and persons " is freely admitted ; but 
there is in this no argument for critical partition. Nor 
does the similar occurrence in the life of Isaac (xxvi. 
26-33) warrant the inference that these are variant ac- 
counts of the same transaction recorded by different 
writers. 

The statement " they made a covenant " (ver. 27b), is 
repeated (ver. 32a), but no critic suspects a doublet or 
assigns them to distinct documents. 

SACEIFICE OF ISAAC (CH. XXII. 1-19) 

The narrative of the offering up of Isaac is closely 
linked together in every part. It is identical throughout 
in style and language ; it is an appropriate sequel to all 
that has gone before. There is not the slightest reason for 
partitioning this passage between different writers except 
the occurrence in it of both Elohim and Jehovah. This 
is accordingly made the ground of critical severance ; and 
yet these divine names interpose an obstacle to division 
which it has been found impossible to remove. The 
names, which are the only pretext for division, must first 
be altered into conformity with the critical scheme be- 
fore any division is practicable. The mechanical theory, 
which undertakes to account for the alternation of these 
names by the peculiar habit of different writers, and 



278 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

which loses sight of the distinctive meaning and usage of 
the names themselves, is here completely baffled. 



THE CRITICAL PARTITION 

The first attempt at division was that of Astruc and 
Eichhorn, who assigned vs. 1-10 to the Elohist, and vs. 
11-19 to the Jehovist ; which made it necessary to as- 
sume that Elohim (ver. 12) had been altered from Je- 
hovah. 1 

But the Elohist account cannot end with ver. 10, 
where Abraham takes the knife to slay his son. The ac- 
tion is thus broken off in the midst, and the verses that 
follow are needed to complete it. These following verses 
are also linked to what precedes by the expressions used : 
"Now I know that thou fearest God" (ver. 12) states 
the result of the trial (ver. 1). "Thy son, thine only 
son " (ver. 12), repeats the identical language of ver. 2. 
And ver. 19, " Abraham returned to his young men," is 
an express allusion to his promise made to them (ver. 5). 

Accordingly Tuch proposed to give the Elohist vs. 1- 
13, 19, and to the Jehovist vs. 14-18. Hupfeld (Quel- 
len, p. 55) adopts the same division ; only he insists that 
the Elohist of this chapter, as of ch. xx., xxi., is to be dis- 
tinguished from the Elohist of the earlier chapters of 
Genesis. In this he is followed by subsequent critics 
who agree that it is E and not P. Elohim is here found 
in connection with the diction and style of J, with the 

1 Ewald, Komposition d. Genesis, pp. 74, 75, shows in detail that the 
divine names are in each instance appropriately chosen, and remarks 
that the adherents of the divisive hypothesis have a much more diffi- 
cult task to perform in rending asunder what is so closely knit together. 
He then proceeds to say, " Nevertheless two different writers are assumed 
for no other reason than the constraint of the divine names. And as even 
thus the word Elohim (ver. 12) still makes difficulty, it must fall 
under the rigor of consistent criticism to make way for another name." 



SACRIFICE OF ISAAC (CH. XXII. 1-19) 279 

mention of sacrifice, and with " refined and profound " 
religious ideas, " like the profound theological passage on 
the origin of sin and evil ch. ii., iii." Thus it threat- 
ened to annihilate every distinction between P and J, 
which the critics have been at such pains to establish, and 
to destroy the very foundations of the divisive hypothe- 
sis. The suggestion of a second Elohist was, therefore, 
eagerly welcomed as the only mode of averting so dire 
a catastrophe. 

But whether it be P or E, the divine names still prove 
refractory, and will not fit into the improved division. 
Jehovah (ver. 11) must, in spite of the exact parallel in 
ver. 15, be converted into Elohim. It is also necessary 
to get rid of " Moriah," the manifestation or appearing 
of Jehovah (ver. 2), a proper name, of which Jehovah is 
one of the constituents. Tuch proposes to substitute for 
it " the land of Moreh," in the neighborhood of Shechem 
(xii. 6). Wellhausen objects that " Moreh " was not a 
land, but a place, and conjectures instead "land of the 
Hamorites" (a designation of his own manufacture), 
" where Shechem lay " (see xxxiii. 18, 19), and pleads the 
Samaritan tradition that Mount Gerizim was the scene of 
the sacrifice of Isaac. 1 Dillmann shows that Shechem was 
too remote, 2 and offers another equally unfounded con- 
jectural emendation, "land of the Amorite." But the 
text is in no need of correction. It is only the perplex- 
ity of the critics which demands it, in order to bring it 
into conformity with their hypothesis. 

! Stade calls the sacrifice of Isaac "a Shechemite saga," Geschichte 
Israel, page 583. 

2 According to Robinson's itinerary Shechem was thirty-six hours 
forty-five minutes distant from Beersheba, and could not have been 
reached on the third day (ver. 4), as Abraham had all his preparations 
to make before starting. The distance to Mount Moriah was twenty- 
two hours fifteen minutes, which corresponds to the requirements of 
the narrative. 



280 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

" Moriah " in all probability took its name from this 
incident in the life of Abraham. In later times David 
selected it to be the site of the future temple, because of 
a divine manifestation made to him upon this same spot 
(2 Chron. iii. 1). There is a congruity in this coinci- 
dence that was no doubt in the divine intention when 
Abraham was directed to this particular summit, which 
was in after ages to be the appointed place of sacrifice, 
and which was in close proximity to the place where, in 
the fulness of time, the one effectual sacrifice here prefig- 
ured of God's own and only Son was to be offered. But 
this chapter gives us no reason to suppose that its au- 
thor was aware that the mountain thus hallowed by the 
angelic appearance was to gather additional sacredness 
whether from the erection of the temple or from the sub- 
lime transaction on Calvary. Much less is there the 
slightest ground for assuming that after the temple had 
been built the word " Moriah " was inserted into the 
text of this chapter in order to connect the sacrifice of 
Isaac with the temple mountain. This is certified to be 
the true original reading by ver. 8, where " God will pro- 
vide " is a plain allusion to the name. It is used by 
prolepsis in ver. 2, as Horeb is called " the mountain of 
God " (Ex. iii. 1), because of the divine descent upon it 
at the subsequent giving of the law. If a later writer 
had meant to identify the scene of Abraham's trial with 
B the location of the temple, he would doubtless have used 
the word " Zion," in which it was comprehended, and 
which was its ordinary name. The indefiniteness of the 
language in ver. 2 is also observable. The mountain was 
not known to Abraham, but would be pointed out to him. 
And the name " Moriah " is applied not only to the sum- 
mit, but to the region in which it stood. There is no 
subsequent trace of such a usage. 

" Moriah " (ver. 2) and " God will provide " (ver. 8) in- 



SACRIFICE OF ISAAC (CH. XXII. 1-19) 281 

evitably carry with them ver. 14, whose last clause, " in 
the mount where Jehovah appears," gives the explana- 
tion of the name, and to whose allusive " Jehovah-jireh," 
Jehovah will provide, ver. 8 is preparatory. This verse 
must accordingly be attached to the preceding. Dr. 
Driver admits this by assigning to E vs. 1-14, 19, in 
spite of the twice repeated " Jehovah " in ver. 14. " Je- 
hovah " occurs six times in this chapter, either separate- 
ly or in composition. If with Dr. Driver's assent four of 
these are given to E, how can the other two supply an 
argument for separating vs. 15-18 from the rest of the 
chapter and giving them to a different document ? 

Moreover, vs. 15-18 are inseparable from what pre- 
cedes. " The second time " (ver. 15), which the critics 
arbitrarily erase, is an explicit reference to ver. 11. " The 
angel of Jehovah " is introduced in both verses in identi- 
cal terms. " Thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only 
son" (ver. 12), recurs again ver. 16 (see also ver. 2). 
And these closing verses are essential to the narrative 
and an indispensable part of it, since without them it is 
not brought to a fitting termination. At every crisis in 
his life, and especially after every marked exercise of 
faith, a blessing is freshly pronounced upon Abraham. 
When in obedience to the divine command he left his 
home and kindred and came to Canaan, Jehovah ap- 
peared to him and promised him this land (xii. 7). After 
he had shown his generosity in parting from Lot, the 
same promise was renewed in fuller form (xiii. 14-17). 
After his brave rescue of Lot from a pillaging foe, he 
was blessed of Melchizedek (xiv. 19, 20). His faith in 
Jehovah's promise of seed, made to him in his despond- 
ency (xv. 6), is rewarded by a covenant engagement (vs. 
18-21). When confiding in God's assurance that the 
long-delayed promise should be fulfilled at the set time 
in the next year, he accepted the rite of circumcision (ch. 



282 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

xvii.), Jehovah visited him in his tent on the most confi- 
dential terms (ch. xviii.). And it would be most extraor- 
dinary if the most conspicuous manifestation of his faith 
and obedience, put to the severest test, and this trium- 
phantly borne, were to pass without signal recognition 
and reward. The situation calls for just what we actu- 
ally find in vs. 15-18, a renewal of the promises in their 
amplest form, Jehovah by a voice from heaven confirm- 
ing them by the added solemnity of an oath. 

The question here arises how and by whom the differ- 
ent constituents, which in the opinion of the critics are 
here combined, have been put together in their present 
form. According to the fundamental assumptions of 
the critical hypothesis E could not have used the name 
" Jehovah." It is necessary, therefore, to suppose that 
the portion assigned to him is not now as he must have 
written it, but has been altered by another. Noldeke 
infers that E has both here and elsewhere been worked 
over by J. But this would annul one of the chief argu- 
ments for the existence of E distinct from J, based upon 
alleged discrepancies between their respective narratives ; 
and Wellhausen interposes an objection on this ground. 
Dillmann adds that if J had made these alterations in E, 
he would not have suffered Elohim to remain. In the ear- 
liest edition of his " Commentary " Dillmann maintained 
that there were two independent accounts of this trans- 
action by E and by J, and that E incorporated into E's 
account from that of J the mention of Moriah, the name 
Jehovah, and the added verses at the end. But the 
author of these closing verses must have had those that 
precede before him, for there are identical expressions in 
both. In subsequent editions Dillmann receded from 
this position and insisted that the changes and additions 
are to be ascribed to K, and were made by him of his 
own motion and not borrowed from an antecedent source. 



SACKIFICE OF ISAAC (CH. XXII. 1-19) 283 

But then what K has inserted is indistinguishable from 
J in matter and style ; and the same is true of what E 
has written, with the sole exception of the divine names. 
So that it might appear as though the agnostic position 
long ago taken by Gramberg was the safest one for the 
critics in dealing with this chapter, viz. : that the docu- 
ments are so blended that it is impossible to effect a par- 
tition, and "no one can tell what belongs to the Elohist, 
what to the Jehovist, and what to the redactor." l 

In fact some of the critics lean strongly toward the 
admission of the unity of this narrative. Hupfeld 
("Quellen," p. 178) speaks of it as "a complete and ar- 
ticulated whole," that would in every case be the loser 
by any omission ; and he adds, " I cannot conceal the fact 
that the entire narrative seems to me to bear the stamp 
of the Jehovist ; and certainly one would never think of 
the Elohist, but for the name Elohim (prop., ha-Elohim), 
which here (as in part in the history of Joseph) is not 
supported by the internal phenomena and embarrasses 
criticism." Knobel gives the entire passage to J, and 
opens the way to a correct understanding of it by calling 
attention to the fact, remarked upon before by Hengsten- 
berg and others, that the change of divine names occurs 
at the crisis of the narrative. It is Elohim who tries the 
faith of Abraham (vs. 1-10) ; it is Jehovah who stays the 
patriarch's hand and blesses him (vs. 11-18). Knobel 
says, " Apart from Elohim nothing in this narrative re- 
minds us of the Elohist; on the contrary everything 
speaks for the Jehovist. . . . On account of the 
divine name Elohim (vs. 1, 3, 8, 9), one might suppose 

' Ilgen splinters this passage in a very remarkable way, splitting 
verses, duplicating phrases, giving some particulars to E, and others to 
J, and thus tries to make out two separate narratives of the transaction. 
No one, even of those who are most prone to adopt similar methods 
elsewhere, has thought fit to follow him here. 



284 THE GENEEATIONS OF TEEAH 

that the author was here giving a story taken from an 
older source, as in ch. xx., xxi. But the passage contains 
no other traces of it ; and we, therefore, have to assume 
that the Jehovist here uses Elohim so long as there is 
reference to a human sacrifice, and only introduces Je- 
hovah (ver. 11) after setting aside such a sacrifice, 
which was foreign to the religion of Jehovah." And he 
refers to iii. 1, 3, 5 as an illustrative passage, where in J 
Elohim is used in the conversation of Eve and the ser- 
pent. 

The real significance of the divine names as here used 
is stated in a more satisfactory manner by Delitzsch. 
He accepts Hupfeld's critical division, but destroys the 
basis on which it rests by showing that Elohim and Je- 
hovah are here used with a strict regard to their proper 
meaning, so that they do not afford the slightest ground 
for assuming a diversity of writers. Delitzsch says, 
" The God who bids Abraham sacrifice Isaac is called 
(ha-)Elohim, and the divine manifestation, which pre- 
vents the sacrifice, the angel of Jehovah. He who de- 
mands from Abraham the surrender of Isaac is God the 
creator, who has power over life and death, and therefore 
the power to take back what he has given. But Jehovah 
in his angel prevents the execution of it at the last ex- 
treme ; for the son of the promise cannot perish without 
the promise of God perishing also, and with it his truth- 
fulness and the realization of his purpose of salvation." 
The Creator is the sovereign Lord of all. He has the 
right to demand that the dearest and the best shall be 
surrendered to him. It was not that he from nothing is 
or can be hid, might ascertain the strength of Abraham's 
faith, that this test was imposed upon him, but for Abra- 
ham's own sake, that his faith might be confirmed and 
strengthened by this heroic exercise of it, and that the 
latent power of it might be exhibited to himself and 



SACEIFICE OF ISAAC (CH. XXII. 1-19) 285 

others. Would Abraham give up his beloved Isaac at 
God's bidding, the child for whom he had so long hoped 
and waited, the child of promise, and on whom all the 
other promises made to him were suspended ? Would 
he yield him up to God with the same submission with 
which the heathen around him sacrificed their children 
to their cruel deities ? But Abraham's God abhorred 
the bloody sacrifice of the first-born. It was the spir- 
itual surrender alone that he required. But that must 
be unambiguously expressed in an outward act, that ad- 
mitted of no pretence and no evasion. It was a terrible 
test, safe only in a divine hand, capable of intervening, 
as he did intervene, and as it was his purpose from the 
first to intervene, as soon as the spiritual end of the trial 
was accomplished. 

And herein lay, as Delitzsch further observes, " an 
eternally valid divine protest against human sacrifice," 
while " the ram in the thorn bush, which Abraham offered 
instead of Isaac, is the prototype of the animal sacrifices, 
which are here sanctioned on the same mountain, on 
which the blood of the typical animal sacrifices was to 
flow during the entire period of the Old Testament." 
Dillmann's suggestion, that " the reminiscence here still 
plainly glimmers through that the Hebrews once stood 
in respect to child-sacrifice on a like plane with the other 
Shemites and Canaanites," is a gross and utterly un- 
founded misrepresentation. The lesson of the narrative 
is precisely the reverse, that while God put Abraham's 
faith and obedience to the severest test, he did not re- 
quire the sacrifice of his child. It was only in later and 
degenerate ages that such sacrifices were known among 
the Hebrews, being borrowed from the surrounding 
heathen like other idolatrous abominations. 

The Elohim of ver. 12 does not invalidate the explana- 
tion above given of the divine names occurring in this 



286 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

passage. As was long since shown by Ewald, Elohim is 
here the proper word. " Both names of God can be used 
with the word ' fear,' but with the distinction that ' the 
fear of Jehovah ' respects Jehovah as opposed to strange 
gods (1 Sam. xii. 24 ; Ps. cxv. 10, 11 ; cxxxv. 20) ; while 
' the fear- of God ' only expresses submission to God or 
piety in general, as 2 Sam. xxiii. 3 ; Gen. xx. 11. The 
latter is evidently demanded here, when the angel says 
to Abraham that he is God-fearing and submissive to the 
divine will. The ' fear of Jehovah ' would have implied 
that Abraham had been tempted to idolatry ; but it was 
only his steadfast submission to God that was tested." 

MARKS OF E 

Dillmann claims that this narrative was not originally 
drawn up by J, " although in the language there are va- 
rious things (allerlei) that remind of him," but by E, as 
shown by — 

1. " The prevailing use of Elohim or ha-Elohim " ; 
this is explained above. 

2. " The revelation in a vision at night (ver. 1) " ; but 
so also in J. See ch. xx., Marks of E, No. 4. 

3. " The call and answer (vs. 1, 7, 11) " ; twice besides 
inE (xxxi. 11 ; xlvi. 2). In all other passages there is a 
great diversity of critical opinion ; xxvii. 1, 18, is by most 
critics referred to J, but by Wellhausen and Dillmann to 
E, simply and solely on account of this very form of 
speech, while the context is assigned to JE as incapable 
of separation ; xxxvii. 13 stands in a mixed JE context, 
which Kautzsch cannot unravel, while Wellhausen and 
Cornill cut out the clause containing this phrase and as- 
sign it to E on this account ; Ex. iii. 4b is cut out of a J 
context by Wellhausen on account of this phrase and 
given to E ; it is also assigned to E by Dillmann, who 
gives ver, 4a to J. 



SACRIFICE OF ISAAC (CH. XXII. 1-19) 287 

4. "The angel calling out of heaven (ver. 11)." In 
one instance and one only " the angel of Elohim " is said 
to have called out of heaven (xxi. 17). "The angel of Je- 
hovah " does the same (xxii. 11, 15), which but for criti- 
cal legerdemain belong to J. Angels come down to earth 
in E (xxviii. 12) and meet Jacob on his way (xxxii. 2, E. 
Y. ver. 1) ; one spoke to him in a dream (xxxi. 11) with- 
out any suggestion of the voice coming out of heaven. It 
cannot be reckoned a peculiarity of E, therefore, that 
angels call out of heaven. 

5. " nb in a local sense (ver. 5) " ; so in E (xxxi. 37 ; 
Num. xxiii. 15). It occurs besides in this sense in two 
other places in the Hexateuch, one of which (Ex. ii. 12) is 
referred to J by Wellhausen, and the other (Num. xi. 31) 
by Kuenen. nb "# the same combination as in Gen. xxii. 
5, occurs twice besides in the Hexateuch, in both in- 
stances in a temporal sense ; of these Ex. vii. 16 is re- 
ferred to J by Cornill, and Josh. xvii. 14 by Kuenen. 

6. " TJ"P only, vs. 2, 12 " ; also ver. 16 E (other critics 
J) ; nowhere else in the Hexateuch. 

That Isaac is here called Abraham's " only " son im- 
plies the previous narrative of the dismissal of Ishmael 
(xxi. 14 sqq.) ; the providential disclosure of the ram to 
Abraham (ver. 13) resembles that of the well to Hagar 
(xxi. 19) ; and the return to Beersheba (ver. 19) is based 
upon xxi. 31, 32 (but also ver. 33 J). But while this nar- 
rative is thus linked with passages ascribed by the critics 
to E, it is no less indissolubly tied to those which are 
attributed to J. This final trial of Abraham's faith is a 
fitting climax to the series of trials previously recorded 
by J. And vs. 15-18, whose necessary connection with 
the previous part of the chapter, both in matter and in the 
form of its expressions, has already been exhibited, re- 
peats with special emphasis promises elsewhere ascribed 
to J, preserving both their language and their figurative 



288 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

form. "I will bless thee," as xii. 2 ; " multiply thy seed 
as the stars of the heaven," as xv. 5; xxvi. 4; "and the 
sand which is upon the sea-shore," as xiii. 16 ; xxxii. 13 
(E. Y. ver. 12) ; "thy seed shall possess the gate of his 
enemies " as xxiv. 60 ; " in thy seed shall all the nations 
of the earth be blessed," as xii. 3 ; xviii. 18 ; xxvi. 4 ; 
" because thou hast obeyed my voice," as xviii. 19 ; 
xxvi. 5. 



MARKS OF R 

Dillmann repeats Hitzig's objection that vs. 15-18 
cannot be by E, the reputed author of the previous part 
of the chapter, because this second communication by 
the angel instead of being a continuation of ver. 12 is 
added afterward in a supplementary manner. But this 
carping criticism betrays a lack of appreciation of a feat- 
ure of the narrative which adds to its beauty and im- 
pressiveness regarded merely from a rhetorical point of 
view. There is no reason why the angel might not speak 
twice, as well as once. It was enough at first to arrest 
the patriarch's hand and approve his obedience. The 
promise of Jehovah, attested by a solemn oath, most fitly 
concludes the scene after Abraham had completed his 
act of worship by offering the ram. If this order had 
been reversed, and the action continued after the angel 
had spoken, attention would have been diverted from 
that which now crowns the whole, and upon which chief 
stress is laid. 

It is further charged that — 

1. *W2uJp ^ by myself have I sworn (ver. 16), is a 
formula that belongs to a later time, e.g., Isa. xlv. 23 \ 
Jer. xxii. 5 ; xlix. 13. But that God did thus confirm 
his promise to Abraham by an oath is abundantly at- 
tested (Gen. xxiv. 7 ; xxvi. 3 ; 1. 24; Ex. xxxiii. 1 ; Num. 



SACKIFICE OF ISAAC (CH. XXII. 1-19) 289 

xxxii. 11 ; Deut. i. 8, etc.). And that this was an oath 
by himself is expressly affirmed (Ex. xxxii. 13). An 
equivalent asseveration by his own life is also attributed 
to Jehovah in the Pentateuch (Num. xiv. 21, 28 ; Deut. 
xxxii. 40). 

2. miT Dtf? saith Jehovah (ver. 16), is also said to be a 
prophetic formula of a later period. But the phrase oc- 
curs again (Num. xiv. 28). And DfcO occurs besides in 
the prophecies of Balaam (Num. xxiv. 3, 4, 15, 16), where 
its antiquity is vouched for by the obvious imitations in 
2 Sam. xxiii. 1 ; Prov. xxx. 1. 

3. "iTO ]2^ because (ver. 16) ; besides in the Hexateuch 
Deut. i. 36 ; Josh. xiv. 14. ^ occurs also Num. xi. 20 J; 
Lev. xxvi. 43 J worked over (so Dillmann) ; and Num. 
xx. 12, which Wellhausen assigns to P, and Dillmann also 
to P, except only the clause containing this word, which 
he refers to K. 

4. itdjs; nj?5? because (ver. 18) ; but once besides in the 
Hexateuch xxvi. 5. ypy occurs also Num. xiv. 24 ; Deut. 
vii. 12 ; viii. 20. The employment of these unusual con- 
junctions, as of the emphatic absolute infinitives in 
ver. 17, is due, as Dillmann correctly observes, to the 
solemn and impressive character of this angelic utter- 
ance. 

5. :pS)nn bless one's self, i.e., seek and obtain a blessing 
(ver. 18). This reflexive form of the verb occurs twice 
in the promise of a blessing upon all nations through 
Abraham and his seed, viz., here and xxvi. 4 ; the passive 
form tJ^DS be blessed, is used instead three times, viz., 
xii. 3; xviii. 18; xxviii. 14. The sense is substantially 
the same. *pQ5 is found nowhere else in the Old Testa- 
ment. -pSlJnn occurs besides, Deut. xxix. 18 (E. Y. ver. 
19) ; Ps. lxxii. 17 ; Isa. lxv. 16 ; Jer. iv. 2. There is noth- 
ing to indicate that one form is of later origin than the 
other. 

19 



290 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 



NO PROOF OF SEPARATE DOCUMENTS 

The diction of these verses cannot prove them to be of 
later date than the rest of the chapter. There is no oc- 
casion, therefore, to call in the aid of E in their produc- 
tion. And neither in this chapter nor in those that pre- 
cede is there any just ground for assuming the existence 
of a writer E, distinct from J. Their diction is indistin- 
guishable. 1 The divine names are used discriminatingly 
throughout, and afford no criterion of diverse authorship. 

And the attempt to establish a distinctive diction for 
P cannot be called successful. Of all the so-called char- 
acteristic P words and phrases of the creation and flood 
Elohim is almost the only one that occurs henceforth in 
P paragraphs in Genesis. There is not a word in the 
entire section of the Generations of Terah, which the 
critics regard as peculiar to P, that is found in antece- 
dent chapters with the exception of a very few expressions 
in ch. xvii., and these are chiefly due to the fact that 
God's covenant with Abraham naturally calls for the use 
of the same terms as his covenant with Noah. And those 
which are ascribed to P in this section either do not re- 
appear in Genesis, or are found as well in J and E with 
rare exceptions, which contain their explanation in them- 
selves. It has been previously shown that the differences 
existing between the Elohist and Jehovist paragraphs in 
the ante-patriarchal portion of Genesis are not such as to 
imply distinct authors, but are readily explicable from the 

1 In addition to the proofs already given that the alleged diversities 
are not really such, note the following coincidences between what is 
ascribed to E in this chapter and what is referred to J elsewhere. 
noa (ver. 1) as Ex. xvi. 4 ; ^ (ver. 2) as xii. 13 ; xviii. 30 ; *p *£ (ver. 
2) as xii. 1 ; -p^ nfca "Wlk (ver, 2) as xxvi. 2, of. xii. 1 ; ^pM u^TDH 
(ver. 3) as xix. 27. 



FAMILY OF MHOR (CH. XXII. 20-24) 291 

matter of these paragraphs respectively, and from the spe- 
cial meaning and usage of the divine names Elohim and 
Jehovah. The same thing is yet more emphatically true 
of that portion of Genesis which we are now considering. 
The difference of diction that is here alleged between P 
and J is wholly factitious, being created by two features 
of the critical partition, viz. : the scanty fragments of the 
narrative attributed to P, and the peculiar character of 
the only two paragraphs of any length (chs. xvii. and 
xxiii.) which are accorded to him. As only diminutive 
portions of the narrative are awarded to P, it is not to 
be expected that these will contain the full vocabulary 
of the bulk of the narratives, which is shared between 
the other documents. That numerous words and phrases 
occur in J and E, which are not to be found in P, thus 
arises out of the inequality in the apportionment. And 
when to the difference in quantity is added the difference 
in the nature of the material assigned to P on the one 
hand, and to J and E on the other, all the diversity of 
diction is fully accounted for. And the entire critical 
superstructure of separate documents which has been 
built upon it crumbles into nothing. 

It may at least be safely affirmed that no evidence of 
the existence of such documents has been brought to 
light in that part of Genesis which has thus far been 
considered. And this is the portion of the book in which 
the divisive hypothesis has been supposed to be most 
strongly entrenched. It must find its justification here, 
if it can do so anywhere. 

FAMILY OF NAHOR (CH. XXII. 20-24) 

Tuch, Noldeke, and Knobel refer these verses, which 
contain a list of the children of Nahor, to P ; Wellhausen 
gives them to E ; Hupfeld and Dillmann to J, which last 



292 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

is now the current critical opinion. The determining 
consideration is that the mention of Rebekah, the 
only daughter named of any of the twelve sons (ver. 23), 
is evidently designed to prepare the way for the narra- 
tive of Isaac's marriage in ch. xxiv., which is assigned to 
J. Only those women have a place in the genealogies, 
of whom there is occasion to speak in the subsequent his- 
tory. And xxii. 23 is distinctly referred to in xxiv. 15, 
24. Accordingly, the E phrase at the beginning, " and it 
came to pass after these things," as xxii. 1 ; xl. 1 ; xlviii. 
1, is either quietly ignored, as by Dillmann, or attributed 
to K, as by Kautzsch. The diffuseness shown in the 
repetition (ver. 23b) of what had already been stated 
(ver. 20b), which is elsewhere reckoned a characteristic 
of P, is also ignored. The assertion that P would have 
prefixed the title, " These are the generations of Nahor," 
overlooks the fact that Nahor, like Abraham, belonged to 
the family of Terah, and all that appertained to both fell 
properly under the " Generations of Terah." The men- 
tion of Milcah (ver. 20), refers back to xi. 29, where her 
marriage to Nahor is stated in preparation for this very 
passage. It is this which compelled the critics to claim 
xi. 29 for J, thus sundering it from xi. 27 P, to which it 
is indissolubly bound. 

MARKS OF J 

1. ib^i begat (ver. 23). See ch. vi.-ix., Marks of P, No. 
20. 

2. Eftb^S concubine (ver. 24) ; besides in the Hexateuch 
xxv. 6 ; xxxv. 22a ; xxxvi. 12 ; and in each instance at- 
tributed to R. 

3. tfin D3 she also (vs. 20, 24) ; in J, besides, iv. 4, 26 ; 
x. 21 ; xxvii. 31 ; xxxviii. 10, 11 ; xlviii. 19 ; in E xxxii. 
19 (E. Y. ver, 18). D3 does not chance to occur with this 



DEATH AKD BURIAL OF SARAH (CH. XXIII.) 293 

particular pronoun in the passages assigned to P, but it 
is used in the same manner with other personal pronouns 
(Ex. vi. 5 ; vii. 11 ; Num. xviii. 3, 28 P). See under ch. 
x., page 137. 

4. WatOi and her name, i.e., whose name was (ver. 24), 
claimed by Wellhausen, but not by Dillmann, as a crite- 
rion of J ; besides, in J, xvi. lb ; xxiv. 29 ; xxv. 1 ; 
xxxviii. 1, 2, 6 ; in JE, Josh. ii. 1. This is the uniform 
way throughout the historical books of the Old Testa- 
ment of introducing the name of a person who has just 
been mentioned, and cannot be regarded as peculiar to 
any one writer. 

That precisely twelve sons of Nahor are here enumer- 
ated, " as of Ishmael, Israel, and Edom," as is correctly 
explained by Dillmann, " does not rest upon a transfer of 
Israelitish relations to those of kindred stock (so Knobel), 
nor upon the mere systematizing of the writer (so N61- 
deke), but upon the usages of these peoples," which were 
in point of fact severally divided into just twelve tribes. 

In regard to the alleged variant descent of Aram and 
Uz (ver. 21, cf. x. 22, 23), see under ch. x. pp. 137-139. 

DEATH AND BURIAL OF SARAH (CH. XXIII.) 

The land of Canaan had been promised to Abraham 
and his seed for their permanent possession, xii. 7 ; xiii. 
15 ; xv. 18 ; xvii. 8 ; but he had now for more than sixty 
years been a wanderer and a sojourner, with no absolute 
ownership of any portion of the soil. Hence the stress 
laid in this chapter upon the purchase of the field and 
cave of Machpelah, the first spot of ground to which he 
obtained a legal title. The transaction was conducted 
with punctilious regard to all the necessary formalities, 
and these are recited in detail ; all which evidences not 
the diffuse style of a particular writer P, but the impor- 



294 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

tance which was attached to the rights thus conveyed. 
The securing of this burial-place was properly regarded 
as a first instalment and a pledge of the final fulfilment 
of the divine promise, and as indicative of Abraham's 
implicit faith in that promise. The subsequent refer- 
ences to it are also made with a formality and a studied 
repetition of the language here employed, which show 
how significant it was held to be, and how it both nur- 
tured and served to give expression to the faith of the 
patriarchs, and particularly of Jacob, after he had re- 
moved to Egypt (xxv. 9, 10 ; xlix. 29-32 ; 1. 13). For 
the same reason it is twice emphatically repeated in ch. 
xxiii. that this was "in the land of Canaan" (vs. 2, 19). 
And, as Havernick suggests, the consequence attributed 
in these various passages to the possession of a burial- 
place implies that the record was made prior to the ac- 
tual occupation of Canaan by the Israelites, after which 
it ceased to be of special interest, and is never again re- 
ferred to. 

Noldeke imagines a discrepancy with Gen. xxxiii. 19, 
Josh. xxiv. 32 E, according to which passages "Jacob 
makes the first acquisition of land at Shechem by pur- 
chase." The discrepancy is a sheer creation of the critic. 
Although Jacob's purchase was sufficiently memorable 
to be deemed worthy of special record, there is no inti- 
mation that it was the first territorial acquisition of the 
patriarchs. 

Eichhorn x remarks upon this transaction : " In Meso- 
potamia, where no Canaanites traded, gold and silver 
were still rare in Jacob's time ; everything was acquired 
by exchange, and Jacob gives twenty years of service as 
a herdsman in exchange for two wives, servants, maid- 
servants, and flocks. On the other hand, in Canaan, in 
the neighborhood of the Phoenicians, who had in their 

i Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 3d edit., 1803, vol. ii., p. 373. 



DEATH AND BURIAL OF SARAH (CH. XXIII.) 295 

hands the trade of the world, barter was no longer in 
vogue in the time of Abraham, but silver was used as 
pretium eminens, not, however, in coins of different de- 
nominations, but by weight (ver. 16). Yet in Jacob's 
time the Phoenicians probably had rude coins (xxxiii. 19). 
. . . Abraham buys the cave of Machpelah in the 
presence of witnesses, and counts upon remaining in un- 
disturbed possession of the field, just as in Homer the 
Greeks and Trojans count assuredly upon the fulfilment 
of the treaty which has been concluded, because both 
armies were present at the oral agreement." 

" Abraham came to mourn for Sarah " (ver. 2), should 
perhaps be rendered "went in" to her tent (cf. xviii. 
6). Some, however, understand it to mean that he came 
from Beersheba, and find here a link of connection with 
xxii. 19, and suppose in ver. 4, "a sojourner," an allu- 
sion to xxi. 34, " he sojourned in the land of the Phil- 
istines." 

The single occurrence of Elohim in ch. xxiii. (ver. 6), 
in the mouth of the children of Heth is so entirely in 
accordance with Hebrew usage that no individual pecu- 
liarity of a particular writer can be inferred from it. 

Chs. xvii. and xxiii. severally relate to the two chief 
promises made to Abraham, and from time to time re- 
peated, viz., his future seed and the land of Canaan. One 
records the ordaining of circumcision ; the other the ac- 
quisition of the first possession in the land. Both are 
thoroughly germane to the entire history, and give no 
indication of being interpolated additions. The stress 
laid upon each, and the legal precision natural in insti- 
tuting the rite and in describing the deed of purchase 
give to these chapters an appearance of formal repetition, 
which does not belong to such portions of ordinary nar- 
rative as are ascribed to P. This peculiar material re- 
quires, of course, a fitting style and diction, and sufficiently 



296 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

accounts for any divergence in this respect from other 
paragraphs. 1 

MARKS OF P 

1. " The chronological statement " (ver. 1). See ch. 
xvi., Marks of P, No. 1. 

2. " The aim of the narrative, the juristic punctilious- 
ness and formality of the record." It has been shown 
that the narrative is closely related to the antecedent his- 
tory, and is precisely in line with the promises to Abra- 
ham, w T hich are the burden of the whole ; also that the 
minute exactness of the record corresponds with the 
character of the transaction. It does not appear why 
the same historian, who describes other events in the life 
of Abraham, cannot include this likewise in his narra- 
tive, and in doing so cannot adapt his style to the nature 
of the subject. 

3. " Children of Heth " (vs. 3, etc.). This is an obvi- 
ous reference to x. 15 J, where the tribe or tribal ances- 
tor is called Heth. 

4. " Machpelah " (vs. 9, 17, 19), only mentioned else- 
where as the burial-place of patriarchs and with explicit 
reference to this passage (xxv. 9 ; xlix. 30 ; 1. 13). Since 
all the passages in which this cave is spoken of are re- 
ferred to P, there is no opportunity for this word to oc- 
cur in J or E. 

5. ^n 13E years of the life of (ver. 1) ; as this phrase 
is only used when stating the age of a person, and such 
passages are by rule referred to P, it cannot be expected 
in J or E. 

1 Observe how even Wellhausen (Comp. d. Hex. , p. 168), in con- 
tending that Lev. xxvi. is by the author of chs. xvii.-xxv., insists that 
"the differences of language are sufficiently explained by the distinct 
character of the material ; hitherto laws in dry style suited to the sub- 
ject, now prophecy in poetic and impassioned discourse." 



DEATH AND BURIAL OF SARAH (CIL XXIII.) 297 

6. n-Ttitf possession (vs. 4, 9, 20). See ch. xvii., Marks 
of P, No. 7. 

7. DC in sojourner (ver. 4) ; nowhere else in Genesis. 
Only besides in legal sections (Ex. xii. 45 ; Lev. xxii. 10 ; 
xxv. 6, 23, 35, 40, 45, 47 ; Num. xxxv. 15), and, therefore, 
necessarily limited to the document to which such sec- 
tions are given. 

8. arte prince (ver. 6). See ch. xvii., Marks of P, No. 
11. 

9. Dip be made sure (vs. 17, 20) ; so in P (Lev. xxv. 30 ; 
xxvii. 14, 17, 19 ; Num. xxx. 5-13, E. V., vs. 4-12). The 
word is here used in the legal sense of a contract, deci- 
sion, or vow, standing, i.e., enduring or being valid. This 
particular application of the word can only be expected 
where the legal validity of such arrangements is spoken 
of. It is, however, substantially the same sense as in 
Josh. ii. 11 JE, remain ; vii. 12, 13 J, stand firm ; and in 
the causative form, ratify or establish (Gen. xxvi. 3 R 
(Dillmann) or J (other critics) ; Lev. xxvi. 9 J (so Dill- 
mann) ; Num. xxiii. 19 E). 

10. btf ya© hearken unto (ver. 16) ; so in J (xvi. 11 ; 
xxxix. 10 ; xlix. 2) ; in E (xxi. 17 ; xxx. 17). 

11. insptt possession (ver. 18). See ch. xvii., Marks of 
P, No. 9.' ' 

12. 1?53 in$ land of Canaan (vs. 2, 19). See ch. xii. 5, 
Marks of P, No. 4. Great stress is laid upon the fact 
that it was in the land of Canaan that Sarah died and 
was buried, and that the spot purchased by Abraham and 
formally deeded to him was in that land. 

13. " Back references to what is related here in xxv. 9, 
10 ; xlix. 29 sqq. ; 1. 13." These are freely admitted and 
are proofs of a close relation between those passages and 
this chapter, but do not imply that they belong to a dif- 
ferent document from other intervening passages. 

It will be observed how little there is that is distinc- 



298 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

tive in the diction of ch. xxiii. to connect it with other P 
sections in Genesis. 



MARRIAGE OF ISAAC (CH. XXIV.) 

In xxv. 20 P alludes to Isaac's marriage to Bebekah, 
daughter of Bethuel and sister of Laban, in a manner im- 
plying previous mention of these parties and of this 
event. Precisely the account thus called for is to be 
found in ch. xxiv. and the preliminary genealogy (xxii. 
20-24), both which, however, the critics assign to J. 
This makes it necessary for them to assume that a similar 
narrative was contained in P, but II has thought proper 
to omit it. It is easy to make conjectural assumptions 
with the view of evading or explaining away facts at va- 
riance with the divisive hypothesis ; only it should be 
borne in mind that these assumptions lend no support to 
the hypothesis. They are simply inferences based upon 
the hypothesis. And the necessity of multiplying such 
assumptions betrays the weakness of the cause that re- 
quires them. 

J has Aram-naharaim once only (xxiv. 10), while P 
has Padclan-aram (xxv. 20 and elsewhere) ; but apart 
from the fact that these names may not be precise 
equivalents, as Dillmann admits, this is no more a rea- 
son for suspecting diversity of authorship than when J 
uses two different designations of the same place : * xxiv. 

1 It would argue no diversity of writers if, in an account of the land- 
ing of the pilgrims, we should read upon one page that they reached 
the coast of America, and on the next that they disembarked in New 
England. In the first mention of the region the more general term 
Aram-naharaim is employed, but ever after Paddan-aram, as indicating 
more precisely where Haran lay ; and Haran occurs in P (xi. 31 ; xii. 5) 
as well as in J and E. " Haran is a town situated in Paddan-aram ; 
but a nomad rarely lives shut up in a town. The whole land is his, 
and he and his flocks traverse it far and wide. The names of the town 



MARRIAGE OF ISAAC (CH. XXIV.) 299 

10, " city of Nahor," and xxvii. 43, " Haran ; " or uses 
n^aUJ for oath, xxiv. 8, but nbtf, ver. 41. Nor can any 
significance be attached to the circumstance that J says 
" daughters of the Canaanites " (xxiv. 3, 37), and P, 
" daughters of Canaan " (xxviii. 1, 6, 8 ; xxxvi. 2), inas- 
much as J himself varies the expression again (xxxiv. 1) 
to " daughters of the land." And according to Well- 
hausen P calls the same persons " daughters of Hittites " 
(xxvi. 34), and " daughters of Heth " (xxvii. 46). On the 
other hand, it is observable as one of the numberless in- 
dications of unity that the same care to avoid intermar- 
riages with the Canaanites is shown in ch. xxiv. as in 
xxviii. 1-9, which the critics on this very ground assign 
to a different document. 

Yerse 67 alludes to Sarah's death, recorded in ch. xxiii. 
P. But as on critical principles one document cannot 
refer to what is contained in another, Dillmann erases 
the mention of Sarah here as a later gloss. The allega- 
tion that the words "his mother Sarah," in the first 
clause of this verse, are inadmissible in Hebrew con- 
struction is refuted by numerous examples of the same 
sort, e.g., Gen. xxxi. 13 ; Josh. iii. 11; Judg. viii. 11 ; xvi. 
14 ; and if they were, this would not affect the reading 
in the last clause of the verse. Wellhausen, more bravely 
still, proposes to substitute " father " for " mother," as 

and of the land can accordingly be interchanged without indicating a 
difference of style. But Genesis itself distinguishes yet more narrowly 
between these names. When Jacob goes from home, he always goes to 
Haran, because he expects to find the family residing in the town 
(xxvii 43 ; xxviii. 10). And when he comes before the gates of the 
town (xxix. 4), and asks those who come out, is he not compelled to ask 
for Haran ? It is true that the name of the land to which Jacob is go- 
ing also occurs (xxviii. 2, 5, 6. 7), but only in contrast with the land of 
Ishmael (ver. 9). But when Jacob journeys back again to Canaan he 
always leaves, not Haran, but Paddan-aram ; for he takes his flight, not 
from the town, but from the land, where he was pasturing the flocks 
far and wide." — Ewald, Komp. d. Gen., pp. 109, 110. 



300 THE GENERATIONS OE TERAH 

the last word of ver. 67. He tells us that Abraham must 
have died before the servant's return, only R has omitted 
the account of his death. And thus by the clever device 
of reconstructing the text a twofold advantage is gained. 
A troublesome allusion is escaped and a flat contradic- 
tion created between J and P, for according to the latter 
(xxv. 7, 20) Abraham lived thirty-five years after Isaac's 
marriage. Kautzsch is not content with this simple 
emendation, but undertakes to correct the narrative 
more at large upon the basis suggested by Wellhausen. 
He tells us that after ver. 61a there followed the an- 
nouncement that the servant on his return found Abra- 
ham dead ; and consequently, ver. 61b, " the servant took 
Eebekah and went his way (ver. 62), in the land of the 
South, and came to Isaac ; for he dwelt in the wilderness 
of Beer-lahai-roi." There is, he assures us, but one 
other possibility, viz., that ver. 62 may have read, " Isaac 
was come from the wilderness of Beer-lahai-roi to the 
burial of Abraham." One thing is evident, if the critics 
are right the text is wrong ; but if the text is right, how 
is it with the critics ? 

In ver. 61 Knobel fancies that the second clause does 
not naturally follow the first, and that this indicates two 
blended accounts. And as the servant brings Rebekah, 
not to Abraham, who had sent him, but to Isaac, and calls 
Isaac his master (ver. 65), instead of his master's son, as 
vs. 44, 48, 51, the inference is drawn that in the older 
narrative, of which there is a fragment in vs. 61-67, it 
was Isaac, not Abraham, who deputed the servant upon 
his errand. And in his opinion this discovery is cor- 
roborated by some " very peculiar expressions " in these 
verses, of which other critics who have no end to be 
answered by them take no note. It surely is not strange 
that a bride should be taken at once to her husband ; 
nor that the servant should call Isaac his master, since 



MARRIAGE OF ISAAC (CH. XXIV.) 301 

he was Abraham's heir, now in mature age, and in 
charge of all his father's possessions, especially when 
speaking to Bebekah. It was equally natural, when 
treating with her father and brother in the name of 
Isaac's father, that he should speak of Isaac as his mas- 
ter's son. 

In his first edition Dillmann accepted Knobel's dis- 
covery of a variant account of the mission of the servant, 
and attributed vs. 62-67 to E. But in subsequent edi- 
tions he discarded it in favor of Hupfeld's ("Quellen," p. 
145) and Wellhausen's version of the story, that Abra- 
ham was at the point of death when he sent the servant, 
and actually died before the servant's return. In con- 
formity with this it is assumed that in J xxv. 1-6, lib 
preceded ch. xxiv. ; in defence of which it is urged that 
the statement by the servant (ver. 36), that Abraham had 
given all that he had unto Isaac is based upon xxv. 5, 
and Isaac's dwelling at Beer-lahai-roi (xxv. lib) is pre- 
supposed in xxiv. 62. But the servant might state a 
fact from his own knowledge, which there had been no 
suitable occasion to mention as yet in the course of the 
history. And the sacred historian makes no formal 
mention of the dwelling-place of Isaac until he has re- 
corded the death of Abraham (xxv. 8, 11), precisely as 
he records the death of Isaac (xxxv. 29) before the like 
formal mention of the abode of Esau (xxxvi. 6) and of 
Jacob (xxxvii. 1). r The critics say that B transposed 
xxv. 1-6, lib, from its original position in order to re- 
move the conflict between J and P as to the time of 
Abraham's death. The fact is that the critics arbitrarily 
assume this transposition, and fix the time of Abraham's 
death at their own liking for the mere purpose of creat- 
ing a variance between ch. xxiv. and ch. xxv. which does 
not really exist, and thence deducing an argument for dis- 
tinct documents. It certainly does not prepossess one 



303 THE GENERATIONS OE TERAH 

in favor of a cause that it should be necessary to resort 
to such measures in its support. 

Knobel imagines that he detects a discrepancy of 
another sort between J and P, in relation, not to the 
time of Abraham's death, but that of Sarah. According 
to J, or the older narrative which he here follows, Isaac 
was comforted after his mother's death by his marriage 
with Rebekah (ver. 67). But " according to P he was 
thirty-six or thirty-seven years old when Sarah died (xvii. 
17 ; xxi. 5 ; xxiii. 1), and forty when he was married (xxv. 
20). He must, therefore, have mourned about four 
years. But thirty and seventy days were prolonged 
terms of mourning (1. 3 ; Num. xx. 29 ; Deut. xxi. 13 ; 
xxxiv. 8). J, therefore, put Sarah's death later, or 
Isaac's marriage earlier than P." As if the duration of 
the grief of a loving son for the loss of his mother was 
to be measured by customary social formalities. 

Dillmann scents a doublet in ver. 29b, cf. 30b, but as 
he can make no use of it, he lets it pass, only insisting 
that 29b has been transposed from its original position 
after 30a. But there is no textual error, and there has 
been no transposition. These verses simply illustrate 
the inartificial style of Hebrew narrative. The general 
statement is made first, 29b, that Laban ran out unto 
the man unto the well; further particulars are added 
afterward (ver. 30), it was when he saw the ring and 
bracelets that had been given his sister and heard her 
words that he came out and found the man standing by 
the well. Or one aspect of a transaction is stated first, 
and then followed by another ; first (61a) what Kebekah 
did, she and her damsels followed the man ; then (61b) 
what the servant did, he took Bebekah and went his 
way. Such seeming repetitions abound in the historical 
writings of the Old Testament. 1 And they afford an op- 

1 See xxii. 3b, 4 ; xxvi. lb 6 ; xxviii. 5, 10, xxix. 1 ; Ex. iv. 20, gen- 



MAKRIAGE OF ISAAC (CH. XXIV.) 303 

portunity, of which the critics avail themselves in nu- 
merous instances in constructing their imaginary dupli- 
cate narratives. The general statement is set over 
against the detailed particulars, or one partial statement 
over against the other, as though each had an indepen- 
dent origin. 

The repetitions of the chapter should also be noted ; 
vs. 37-41 repeat vs. 3-8 almost verbatim ; compare also 
vs. 42-44 with vs. 12-14 ; vs. 45, 46, with vs. 15-20 ; vs. 
47, 48, with vs. 23-27. J here exceeds the repetitious- 
ness elsewhere reckoned a peculiarity of P. Such repe- 
titions are also seized upon, where they can be made 
available, as evidences of duplicate narratives. Thus, 
when Moses reports to the people (Ex. ch. xii., xiii.) the 
directions given him respecting the passover, the feast of 
unleavened bread, and the hallowing of the first-born, as 
the servant here repeats to Bethuel and Laban the charge 
received from Abraham, and the incidents which had 
been before related, the critics find material for two doc- 
uments by giving to one what the Loed says to Moses, 
and to the other what Moses in consequence says to the 
people. 

As it is the God of Abraham that is throughout spo- 
ken of, Jehovah is appropriately used in this chapter. 
It is by Jehovah that Abraham requires his servant to 
swear that he will not take a Canaanitish wife for Isaac 
(ver. 3). It is to the guidance of Jehovah that he com- 
mits his servant on his important errand (ver. 7). It is 
Jehovah, the God of his master Abraham, whom the ser- 
vant invokes (ver. 12), and whom he recognizes as hav- 
ing made his journey prosperous (vs. 21, 26, 27, etc.), so 

eral statement ; 21-29, particulars of the journey ; 2 Sam. vi. 12b, 13- 
17 ; 1 Kin. vi. 14, general statement ; vs. 15-36, details of the construc- 
tion ; 2 Chron. xxiv. 10, 11 ; similar illustrations may be found in the 
New Testament, e.g., Acts vii. 58a, 59. 



804 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

that Laban, to whom Kebekah had made report, at once 
addressed him as " the blessed of Jehovah; " and when 
the servant had given his account of the whole matter, 
Laban and Bethuel 1 acknowledged "the thing proceedeth 
from Jehovah " (vs. 50, 51). In recognition of Jehovah's 
supreme control Abraham adds the epithet (vs. 3, 7), 
" the God of heaven," an expression only found besides 
in postexilic writings (2 Chron. xxxvi. 23 ; Ezr. i. 2 ; Neh. 
i. 4, 5 ; ii. 4, 20), with the single exception of Jon. i. 9, 
which some critics would not count an exception. If 
this had chanced to occur in P, it would have been 
urged in proof of the late origin of that document. But 
as it is in J it is quietly ignored, which is an indication 
of the little weight that critics themselves attribute to 
considerations of this nature, unless they have some end 
to answer by them. 



MARKS OF J 

It is said that J is here distinguished from E by his 
not naming Abraham's chief servant, whom E calls Eli- 
ezer (xv. 2), nor Bebekah's nurse (ver. 59), whom E calls 
Deborah (xxxv. 8), and makes her come to Canaan with 
Jacob at a much later time. But this mark of distinc- 
tion is precisely reversed in the case of Ishmael, whom J 
names (xvi. 11), and E does not (xxi. 9-21). It is also 
nullified by the fact that neither J nor E act uniformly 
in this respect in relation to the same persons. J gives 
the names of Moses's wife and son (Ex. ii. 21, 22), but in 

1 Kautzscli proposes to expunge " Bethuel " from the text in ver. 50, 
because he is not also mentioned in ver. 53. But upon this Knobel 
remarks : " Rebekah's brother Laban takes part in the decision (Dill- 
mann adds, ' and even the first part '). He was entitled to do so by the 
custom of brothers assuming the charge of their sister (xxxiv. 5, 11, 25; 
Judg. xxi. 22; 2 Sam. xiii. 22)." 



MARKIAGrE OF ISAAC (CH. XXIV.) 305 

iv. 20 does not. E does not name Moses's sister, ii. 4, 
but does, Num. xii. 1 ; lie gives the name of Moses's wife 
and sons (xviii. 2-4), but does not name the son (iv. 25), 
nor the wife (Num. xii. 1), provided Zipporah is there 
meant. And Gen. xxxv. 8 speaks of the death of Debo- 
rah, but gives no intimation how or when she came to 
Canaan. This cannot, therefore, be accepted as a cri- 
terion of distinct documents. 

When it is said that the high art shown in the recital 
points to the narrator of ch. xviii., xix., and the lofty con- 
ception of marriage to the author of ii. 23 sqq., no objec- 
tion need be made, unless it is implied that this narra- 
tor could not adapt his style to subjects requiring legal 
precision, nor record genealogies, dates, and the like ; or 
that lower views of marriage are expressed elsewhere in 
this book. 

The following words and expressions are adduced as 
indicative of J : 

1. The angel of Jehovah (vs. 7, 40). See ch. xvi., 
Marks of J, No. 1. 

2. The servant of Jehovah (ver. 14). This expression, 
wherever it occurs in the Hexateuch, is by Dillmann re- 
ferred to J, D, or Kd, even where the verse in which it 
occurs is attributed to E, as Num. xii. 7, 8 ; xiv. 24 ; Josh, 
xiv. 7 ; xxiv. 29. It occurs in P Lev. xxv. 42, 55. 

3. Aram-naharaim (ver. 10). Explained above, p. 298. 

4. Daughters of the Canaanites (ver. 3). Explained 
above, p. 299. 

5. D^JS 82 advanced in days (ver. 1). See ch. xviii., 
xix., Marks of J, No. 32. 

6. traSH 1DH kindness and truth (vs. 27, 49) ; occurs be- 
sides in the Hexateuch xxxii. 11 (E. V., ver. 10) ; xlvii. 
29 ; Ex. xxxiv. 6 ; Josh. ii. 14 J. 

7. ion TW9 shoiv kindness (vs. 12, 14, 49). See ch. 
xviii., xix., Marks of J, No. 29. 

20 



306 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

8. ^bitf peradventure (vs. 5, 39). See ch. xvi., Marks 
of J, No. 12. 

9. pn only (ver. 8). See ch. vi. 1-8, Marks of J, No. 7. 

10. a; I pray thee (vs. 2, 12, 14, 17, 23, 42, 43, 45). 
See ch. xii. 10-20, Marks of J, No. 3. 

11. Eh with a suffix (vs. 42, 49). This particle occurs 
with a suffix but three times besides in the Hexateuch, 
viz., xliii. 4 J ; and twice in Deuteronomy, Deut. xiii. 4 ; 
xxix. 14. 

12. m&njpb "pi run to meet (ver. 17). See ch. xviii., xix., 
Marks of J, No. 16, ch. xxix., xxx., No. 2. 

13. nsntt rob/cwr to look upon (ver. 16) ; but once be- 
sides in the Hexateuch, xxvi. 7 J. See ch. vi. 1-8, Marks 
of J, No. 5. In xii. 11 a different phrase Sl8*Tg n&? is 
used to express the same idea ; but no critic thinks of 
referring it to a different document in consequence. 

14. 3HJ know (euphemism) (ver. 16). In J iv. 1, 17, 25 ; 
xix. 8; xxxviii. 26 ; in P Num. xxxi. 17, 18, 35; all in 
the Hexateuch. 

15. mpn send good speed (ver. 12) ; only twice besides 
in the Hexateuch, viz., in J xxvii. 20 ; in P Num. xxxv. 11. 

16. ti">bxn make prosperous (vs. 21, 40, 42, 56) ; be- 
sides in the Hexateuch xxxix. 2, 3, 23 J (E and K 
Kautzsch) ; Josh. i. 8 D. 

17. isb"b^ ^iStt speak in his heart (ver. 45) ; but once be- 
sides in the Hexateuch in this sense, viii. 21 J ; with a 
different preposition n xxvii. 41, referred to J solely on 
account of this phrase ; xvii. 17 P ; Deut. vii. 17 ; viii. 
17 ; ix. 4 ; xviii. 21 D. 

18. swto hating (for n^S enemy) (ver. 60) ; besides in E 
Ex. i. 10 ; xxiii. 5 ; several times in D ; but not in J ex- 
cept Lev. xxvi. 17, which Dillmann is alone in referring 
to that document. 

19. l^urny; Eh? possess the gate (ver. 60) ; but once be- 
sides in the Hexateuch xxii. 17 E. 



conclusion of Abraham's life (ch. xxv. 1-11) 307 

20. fiJHnisrn TfjJ bow the head and worship (vs. 26, 48) ; 
five times besides in the Hexateuch ; all referred to J. 

21. Piritf rnnnirn bow himself to the earth (ver. 52). 
See ch. xviii., xix., Marks of J, No. 27. 

Here, as elsewhere, such words as occur with any fre- 
quency are found in E as well as in J ; several of them 
likewise in P, notwithstanding the small amount of nar- 
rative which is assigned to this document. 

conclusion of Abraham's life (ch. xxv. l-ii) 

The divisive critics unanimously refer vs. 7-lla to P, 
but there is no unanimity among them in regard to the 
disposition to be made of the other verses of this section. 
They are not agreed whether vs. 1-4, which record the 
sons of Keturah, belong to P, J, or E. As true was at 
least consistent in referring all genealogies of nations and 
tribes outside of the chosen race to a document or docu- 
ments distinct from P and J. Noldeke is equally con- 
sistent in ascribing all the genealogies in Genesis to P, 
and finding some remarkable numerical correspondences, 
which tend to confirm his view. But there is no consist- 
ency in referring Keturah's descendants to one document 
(J or E) and Ishmael's to another (P), though they are 
combined together and a common disposition made of 
both in ver. 6. The various genealogies of this book are 
inserted upon a uniform plan, which binds them all to- 
gether, and shows that they must all be attributed to the 
same source. In addition to the direct line which is 
traced from Adam to the twelve sons of Jacob, the heads 
respectively of the several tribes of Israel, all the lateral 
lines of descent are introduced, each in its proper place, 
and then dropped, thus indicating at once their relation 
to, and their separateness from, the chosen race. 

"And Abraham took another wife" (lit., added and 



308 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

took a wife, ver. 1) contains an implied reference to 
Sarah's death, alluded to in the immediately preceding- 
verse (xxiv. 67), and recorded in ch. xxiii. P. Dillmann 
would be inclined to refer this verse to the author of ch. 
xxiii., were it not that P nowhere else uses the word 
" added." But as that is the customary way of saying 
in Hebrew that a person did again what he had done be- 
fore, it is difficult to see why any Hebrew writer might 
not use the word if he had occasion. 

As Abraham reached the age of one hundred and sev- 
enty-five (ver. 7), there is no difficulty in his marriage 
with Keturah standing where it does, after the death of 
Sarah and the marriage of Isaac. The critics, who sun- 
der P from J and E, and insist that the narratives of the 
latter have no connection with the chronology of the 
former, seek a discrepancy here, and claim that in JE 
the marriage with Keturah must have preceded the birth 
of Isaac. But the advanced age of Abraham and Sarah, 
in consequence of which offspring could not be expected 
in the ordinary course of nature, is as plain in P (xvii. 
17) as in JE (xviii. 11-14; xxi. 7). But the promise 
(xvii. 4-6) that Abraham should be exceedingly fruitful 
and the father of many nations, looks beyond the birth 
of Isaac, and finds its fulfilment in other descendants as 
well. This, like most other alleged discrepancies, is 
found not in the text itself, but in arbitrary critical as- 
sumptions. 

The supplementary critics, who conceived of J as en- 
larging P by additions of his own, had no difficulty in 
letting P have xxv. 5, though xxiv. 36b was J's. But if 
J is an independent document, the identity of the verses 
makes it necessary to attribute both to the same source, 
and xxv. 5 must belong to J. This statement that 
" Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac," would seem 
to carry with it the counter- statement of what became of 



CONCLUSION OF ABRAHAM'S LIFE (CH. XXV. 1-11) 309 

his other children. So Dillmann argued in the first and 
second editions of his " Genesis," and referred ver. 6 to 
J likewise. And if J spoke in this verse of Abraham's 
" concubines," he must have given an account of Keturah 
as well as of Hagar, and accordingly have been the 
author of vs. 1^. But on the other hand, ver. 1 calls her 
a " wife," and ver. 6a" concubine ; " to prevent this im- 
aginary conflict he first assumed that vs. 1-4 was from P, 
but worked over by R, into conformity with J ; then that 
it was impossible to decide from which source vs. 1-4 
was taken ; and finally, in his third edition, he gives ver. 
6 to R, and vs. 1-4 to E, though why E should be so 
interested in this particular genealogy, when he gives no 
other, is not clear. This looks like a shift to get rid of 
a troublesome paragraph, which is assigned to E, not be- 
cause of any particular affinity with that document, but 
it must go somewhere, and there seems to be no other 
place to put it. Keturah is called a wife just as Hagar 
is (xvi, 3), without at all designing to put either of them 
on a par with Sarah ; so that there is no inconsistency in 
their being likewise called concubines, and no need of 
assuming a different writer on this account. Ver. 11 is 
of necessity assigned to P ; but its last clause speaks of 
Isaac's dwelling by Beer-lahai-roi, which is a plain allu- 
sion to xvi. 14 ; xxiv. 62 J ; hence the offending clause 
must be exscinded or transferred to another context and 
attached to J. Thus the whole section is chopped into 
bits, and parcelled among the several documents and the 
redactor, though it is consistent and continuous through- 
out and linked to what precedes as a fulfilment of the 
promise made to Abraham (xvii. 4, 5, P). But if P were 
allowed to have ver. 6, an opportunity would be missed 
of creating an apparent divergence by inferring from ver. 
9 what is not in it, that Ishmael continued to live with his 
father to the time of his death, contrary to xxi. 14-21 E. 



310 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH 

In ver. 11 it is stated that " after the death of Abraham 
Elohim blessed Isaac, his son." Jehovah as the guar- 
dian and benefactor of the chosen race would certainly 
have been appropriate here. And yet Elohim is appro- 
priate likewise as suggestive of the general divine benef- 
icence, which bestowed upon Isaac abundant external 
prosperity. There is no reason accordingly for assum- 
ing that the word is suggestive of the peculiarity of a 
particular writer. 

MARKS OF P (IN VS. 7-lla) 

1. Age of Abraham, ver. 7. See ch. vi.-ix., Marks of 
P, No. 2, ch. xvi., No. 1. 

2. " The statement that Ishmael was still with Abra- 
ham (ver. 9)." No such statement is here made or im- 
plied. Ishmael's presence at Abraham's burial is not 
inconsistent with his residence elsewhere (xxi. 21) ; so 
that this affords no ground for assuming a diversity of 
documents. 

3. " The cave of Machpelah (ver. 9), the diffuseness of 
the style (vs. 9, 10), the children of Heth (ver. 10)." 
The expressions in these verses are borrowed from ch. 
xxiii., the formality and precision of the language indi- 
cating the stress laid upon this first acquisition of prop- 
erty in Canaan. 

4. 215 give up the ghost See ch. vi.-ix., Marks of P, 
No. IS/ ' 

5. Y^?-b$ 5]DK5 teas gathered unto his people, a phrase 
used only of the death of the following venerated men, 
viz. : Abraham (xxv. 8) ; Ishmael (ver. 17) ; Isaac (xxxv. 
29) ; Jacob (xlix. 29, 33) ; Aaron (Num. xx. 24, 26, ellip- 
sis), and Moses (Num. xxvii. 13 ; xxxi. 2 ; Deut. xxxii. 
50). These are all referred to P for the reason that the 
records of the deaths of patriarchs are as a rule referred 



CONCLUSION OF ABRAHAM'S LIFE (CH. XXV. 1-11) 311 

to him. The formula henceforth used of the death of 
patriarchs is in the full form adopted here, "gave up 
the ghost and died, and was gathered to his people " (xxv. 
8, 17 ; xxxv. 29 ; xlix. 33). This formula is not used in 
the case of any other whose death is recorded by P; 
yet no critic infers a difference of writers on this ac- 
count. The same thought is expressed in words spoken 
by the Lokd to Abraham (xv. 15), " go to thy fathers," 
assigned by the critics to JE, but joined as here with the 
phrase, " in a good old age," which speaks for the iden- 
tity of the writers. Dillmann can only account for the 
coincidence by the interference of R in ch. xv. 

6. i*ti *y& **&} days of the years of the life (ver. 7). See 
ch. xxiii., Marks of P, No. 5. 

7. a The back reference of xlix. 31 P to ver. 10; " this 
is freely admitted to be from the same writer ; but this 
implies no admission that other parts of Genesis are 
from a different hand. 

The descent attributed to Sheba and Dedan (ver. 3), 
involves no discrepancy either with x. 7 P, or x. 28 J. 
See under ch. x., pp. 137-139. 

For the use of ib^ beget, in lateral genealogies, see ch. 
vi.-ix., Marks of P, No. 20. The critics make this a 
mark of J, yet here it occurs with ijn^ and the sons of 
(vs. 3, 4), which in ch. x. they make a mark of P. 

" All these were the children of Keturah " (ver. 4 ; cf. x. 
29b ; ix. 19), has been urged in proof of the authorship 
of J ; but the same formula occurs in P xlvi. 15, 18, 22, 
25. 



VII 



THE GENEKATIONS OF ISHMAEL (CH. XXV. 12-18) 

This section is related alike to passages assigned by 
the critics to P, J, and E ; hence the diversity of opinion 
among them as to its origin. It is generally agreed that 
the title (ver. 12a), ver. 16b " twelve princes " descended 
from Ishmael in fulfilment of xvii. 20 P, and ver. 17 
with the phrases of ver. 8, must be from P. But ver. 
12b repeats xxi. 9 E (Dillmann compares xvi. 3, 15 P) ; 
the mention of the territory occupied by the tribes de- 
scended from Ishmael (ver. 18), is after the analogy of x. 
19, 30, J; "he abode in the presence of all his brethren " 
(ver. 18b), is in fulfilment of xvi. 12 J, and adopts its lan- 
guage. Accordingly Hupfeld gives vs. 13-16a, 18, to J. 
Kayser gives ver, 16b likewise to J, and seems inclined 
to follow Boehmer in ascribing ver. 12 to him also, in- 
asmuch as the title, " These are the generations of Ish- 
mael," could hardly have been used to introduce ver. 17, 
which is all that remains for P. " It is not so well made 
out," he says, " as is commonly assumed, that this title 
belongs to P and not to J." Dillmann, on the other 
hand, feels the difficulty of having a separate P title 
prefixed to but one or two verses, and claims the entire 
section for P except ver. 18. The first clause of this 
verse he attributes to J, and attaches to ver. 6 ; the last 
clause he regards as a gloss based upon xvi. 12, because 
the singular number is used, while the preceding clause 
has the plural. But no such conclusion is warranted by 
this change of number, the reason for which is obvious. 



ISHMAEL'S DESCENDANTS (CH. XXV. 12-18) 313 

To make the reference perfectly distinct, the fulfilment 
is stated in the very terms of the prediction. The 
region occupied by Ishmael's descendants is stated in 
the first clause ; thus, as had been foretold, Ishmael 
abode in the presence of all his brethren. There is no 
need of assuming a gloss and no need of transposing the 
verse ; no one would ever have thought of doing either, 
except in the interest of the divisive hypothesis. All is 
appropriate and harmonious as it stands. 

MARKS OF P 

1. The title (ver. 12). See ch. vi.-ix., Marks of P, 
No. 1, ch. xvi. No. 1. 

2. The statement of age (ver. 17). See ch. vi.-ix., 
Marks of P, No. 2. 

3. The formulas of ver. 17. See ch. xxv. 1-11, Marks 
of P, No. 5. 

4. The mention of the first-born (ver. 13, as xxxv. 23 
P). This is no discriminating test, for it occurs (x. 15, 
xxii. 21) in genealogies attributed to J. 

5. The "twelve princes" (ver. 16 ; cf. xvii. 20). This 
and other correspondences point to the common author- 
ship of related passages, but afford no ground for the 
belief that other passages are from a different source. 

The territory described in ver. 18 as the home of the 
Ishmaelites, " from Havilah unto Shur, that is before 
Egypt," is that in which Saul found the Amalekites (1 
Sam. xv. 7). This is a fresh indication of the blending 
of these roving tribes, of which we have already seen 
evidence in the occurrence of the same tribal name in 
different genealogies, e.g., Sheba and Dedan (xxv. 3 and 
x. 7, 28), and which is further evidenced by the inter- 
change of different tribal names in application to the 
same parties (Gen. xxxvii. 28 ; Judg. viii. 1, 12, 24). 



VIII 

THE GENEEATIONS OF ISAAC (CH. XXV. 19-XXXV.) 

This section contains the history of Isaac and his 
family from his marriage until his death. 

ESAU AND JACOB (CH. XXV. 19-34) 

Yater, though an advocate of the fragment hypothesis, 
notes ("Pentateuch," i., p. 244) the precise correspond- 
ence in the arrangement of ch. xxv. and ch. xxxv.-xxxvii., 
which is certainly indicative of unity of plan. 1, Abra- 
ham's sons by Keturah (xxv. 1-6) ; 2, his death and 
burial by his sons Isaac and Ishmael (vs. 7-11) ; 3, the 
descendants of Ishmael (vs. 12-18) ; 4, the history of 
Isaac's family (vs. 19 sqq.). In like manner : 1, Jacob's 
sons by his several wives (xxxv. 23-26) ; 2, Isaac's death 
and burial by his sons Esau and Jacob (vs. 27-29) ; 3, 
the descendants of Esau (ch. xxxvi.) ; 4, the history of 
Jacob's family (ch. xxxvii. sqq.). 

It should be observed also how closely this portion of 
the history is knit to what precedes as well as to what 
follows. The life of Abraham repeats itself in that of 
Isaac, in the renewal of the same divine promises, in the 
trial of faith by a long waiting for the expected child on 
whom the fulfilment of every other promise hinged ; in 
the divine intervention manifest in the birth ; in the dis- 
tinction between the child of divine choice and the re- 
jected first-born ; in the care taken that the marriage of 
the former should be, not with one of the surrounding 



ESAU AND JACOB (CH. XXV. 19-34) 315 

Canaanites, but with one of an allied race ; in Isaac's be- 
traying the same sinful weakness under temptation as his 
father ; and in the divine protection and blessing which 
compelled the recognition even of monarchs. The same 
ideas are made prominent, the same leading principles 
rule throughout the whole. 

It was twenty-five years after Abraham entered Ca- 
naan before Isaac was born (xii. 4 ; xxi. 5). It was 
twenty years after Isaac's marriage before the birth of 
Jacob and Esau (xxv. 20, 26). Their birth is traced to 
an immediate divine bestowment of what was beyond all 
natural expectation. It had been promised to Abraham 
that he should be the father of many nations ; two na- 
tions were to spring from Bebekah. As Isaac was pre- 
ferred to Ishmael, so Jacob to Esau. And though these 
latter were from the same mother, the divine choice was 
made apparent from the first, was independent of per- 
sonal worth, and was finally ratified, not through the un- 
worthy means taken to secure it, but in spite of them. 
It was thus plainly shown to be of divine grace, not of 
human merit. And at length, by providential discipline, 
supplanting Jacob was changed into prevailing Israel. 

Tuch, in defending the supplement hypothesis, attrib- 
uted the whole of this paragraph (vs. 19-34) to P, 
save only vs. 21 (except the last clause), 22, 23, where 
the repeated occurrence of Jehovah betrayed the hand of 
J, who inserted in the work of P, which lay before him 
and which he was supplementing, this forecast of the fut- 
ure history of Eebekah's descendants before the chil- 
dren were born. It was inconceivable, he urged, that a 
history of the ancestry of Israel should say nothing of 
the birth of Jacob, the progenitor of the nation, and of 
his twin brother Esau, by whom the course of Jacob's 
life was so largely influenced. 

This difficulty presses the current divisive hypothesis 



316 THE GENEKATIONS OF ISAAC 

in an aggravated form, which attempts to make out three 
independent documents, without being able to maintain 
the show of continuity for any one of them. To P are 
assigned only vs. 19, 20, and the last clause of ver. 26. 
He accordingly tells how old Isaac was when he was 
married, though no previous account had been given by 
P of his marriage ; also how old he was when " they 
were born," presumably his children, though this is not 
said, and there is no direct mention of their birth such 
as, it is here implied, had been made. The critics tell 
us that P must have told about Isaac's marriage and the 
birth of his sons, but R has not seen fit to preserve that 
part of his record. P then springs at once to Esau's 
marriage at forty years of age (xxvi. 34, 35), and Jacob's 
being sent to Paddan-aram for a wife (xxviii. 1 sqq.), 
whereupon Esau marries again. Three disconnected 
clauses follow, relating to persons abruptly introduced 
with no intimation that they were in any way connected 
with Jacob : (xxix. 24) " And Laban gave Zilpah his 
handmaid unto his daughter Leah for her handmaid ; " 
(ver. 29) " And Laban gave to Rachel his daughter Bil- 
hah his handmaid to be her handmaid ; " (xxx. 22a) 
" And God remembered Eachel." Then (xxxi. 18) 
" He," presumably Jacob, though his name is not men- 
tioned, " carried away all his cattle and all his substance 
which he had gathered, the cattle of his getting, which 
he had gathered in Paddan-aram, for to go to Isaac his 
father unto the land of Canaan." And this is absolutely 
all that P has to say about Jacob from the time that he 
left his father's house until his return to Canaan. There 
is no mention of his arrival in Paddan-aram, or of any- 
thing that occurred there, only that he left it possessed 
of property and cattle with no previous allusion to his 
having acquired them. He Avent to Paddan-aram to seek 
a wife ; but there is no intimation whether his search 



ESAU AND JACOB (CH. XXV. 19-34) 317 

was successful until several years after he had been again 
settled in Canaan, when a bald list is given of his wives 
and children in connection with the mention of Isaac's 
death (xxxv. 22b-29). 

Wellhausen may well call this a " skeleton account." 
And it is suitably characterized by Dr. Harper 1 as "cold 
and lifeless, nothing but a register of deaths, births, and 
marriages ; " and he might have added with the princi- 
pal births and marriages left out. Is this P's fault or 
that of the critics ? Can such scattered snatches be re- 
garded as constituting a separate document, or even ac- 
cepted as proof that they are the remains of a separate 
document, especially when these fragments are essential 
in the context in which they are now found, and their 
removal leaves unfilled gaps behind them ? And is the 
title, " The generations of Isaac," intended to introduce 
these disconnected fragments, or the body of the narra- 
tive to which it is prefixed ? If the latter, we have here 
one more proof that these titles to sections of the book 
of Genesis do not belong to what the critics are pleased 
to call the document P. 

But after P's portion of vs. 19-34 is subtracted, the 
critics still find the remainder not a unit, and yet very 
difficult to disentangle. Wellhausen says that J and E 
are here and in ch. xxvii. so involved " that a clear sep- 
aration is not to be thought of." " Only where the di- 
vine names supply a criterion can the double stream be 
distinctly recognized." As in vs. 29-34 Esau sells his 
birthright of his own accord, while in ch. xxvii. his fa- 
ther's blessing is wrested from him by fraud, it has been 
proposed to assign these to separate documents. But, 
as Wellhausen contends, it will neither answer to give 
the former to E and the latter to J, nor to reverse this 
by giving the former to J and the latter to E. For 
1 The Hebraica for July, 1889, p. 267. 



318 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

Esau's voluntary surrender of his birthright would not 
account for Jacob's flight from home (xxviii. 10 sqq.). 
Both J and E presuppose a hostility on the part of Esau 
such as can only be explained by what is related in ch. 
xxvii. Moreover, xxvii. 36 refers back to the matter of 
the birthright. Hence, though Wellhausen claims that 
in the oral tradition the obtaining of the birthright 
(rron) and of the blessing (HD^il) are mere variants, of 
which he offers no proof, he nevertheless admits that in 
their written form one is no mere substitute for the 
other, but the first is a prelude to the second. 

Wellhausen proposes to give vs. 29-34 the sale of the 
birthright to J. The contrast drawn between Esau and 
Jacob (vs. 27, 28), and the preferences of their parents 
for them respectively, are preparatory for ch. xxvii., and 
presupposed in both J and E, and must have been in 
substance in both documents. Ys. 21-23 is given to J 
because of " Jehovah ; " vs. 24-26a to E, because the 
allusion in Hos. xii. 3 to Jacob taking his brother by the 
heel proves that this tradition was current in the north- 
ern kingdom of Israel, to which E is imagined to have 
belonged, and because ver. 25 suggests a different ex- 
planation of Edom from that given in ver. 30, and in ver. 
26 Jacob is explained differently from xxvii. 36 J. But 
thus J records the conception of the children and the 
prediction respecting them, but does not speak of their 
birth. It thus becomes necessary to suppose that each 
document had originally what is contained in the other, 
only R has not seen fit to preserve it. 

A continuous and closely connected paragraph is thus 
splintered into bits to find material for three documents, 
each of which proves to be incoherent and fragmentary. 
The different allusions to the significance of the names 
Edom and Jacob afford no justification for the partition, 
since they are not variant etymologies implying different 



ESAU AND JACOB (CH. XXY. 19-34) 319 

conceptions of the origin of the names and requiring the 
assumption of distinct writers. 

In his second edition Dillmann adopts substantially 
the partition of "Wellhausen, though in his first he had 
referred the entire paragraph (P excepted) to E, worked 
over by R, and in his third he refers it to J, only the 
word " red " (yer. 25), and a few words in yer. 27, haying- 
been taken from E. From all this it may be inferred 
that the critical machinery does not work yery smoothly 
in this instance. 

It has been alleged that Rebekak's going to inquire 
of Jehovah (yer. 22) implies that there were then places 
where oracular responses were giyen, or seers through 
whom the deity could be consulted. Wellhausen pro- 
poses to transpose this paragraph after ch. xxvi., where 
he finds in vs. 23-33 the founding of a sanctuary at 
Beersheba ; and he jumps to the conclusion that Rebekah 
went to it to inquire of Jehoyah. Stade 1 regards the in- 
cident here recorded of Rebekah as " probably a saga 
respecting the origin of the oracle at Beersheba." But 
there is no suggestion here or elsewhere in the patri- 
archal period of an oracle or a seer. And there is not 
the slightest reason for supposing that either is referred 
to in the present instance, much less of assuming that 
this passage lends approyal to the separatist sanctuary, 
which was in later ages established at Beersheba. Ha- 
yernick appeals to 1 Sam. xxyiii. 6, which shows that 
those who "inquired of Jehoyah " might be answered by 
dreams as well as by Urim and by prophets. Erom the 
frequency with which prophetic dreams are mentioned 
in Genesis, and from the fact that the answer of Jehoyah 
was giyen to Rebekah herself, it is natural to infer that 
the revelation was made to her in a dream. They who 
dispute the reality of predictive prophecy find here a 
1 Geschiclite des Yolkes Israel, p. 474, note. 



320 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

vaticinium post eventum, and an indication of post-Mosaic 
origin. But those who do not accept the premises will 
not share the conclusion. 

It is argued that Isaac could not have passed Bebekah 
off as his sister (xxvi. 7) after her children were born 
and had grown up (xxv. 27). This does not necessarily 
follow. Still, even if xxvi. 1-33 preceded xxv. 21-34 
in point of time, it would not be necessary to suppose 
that the narratives have been transposed. The histo- 
rian is not an annalist. He may depart from the chron- 
ological arrangement when he has good reasons for 
grouping events differently. Whatever motive the re- 
dactor may be thought to have had for transposing these 
incidents may equally have influenced the original writer 
to place them in their present order. 

The divine name is properly and discriminatingly em- 
ployed in vs. 21-23. Jehovah was the God of Isaac no 
less than of Abraham. It is to Jehovah that he directs 
his prayer ; it is to Jehovah that his wife applies in her 
perplexity. It is Jehovah who gives to each a gracious 
answer. 

MARKS OF P (VS. 19, 20, 26b) 

1. The title (ver. 19). See ch. vi.-ix., Marks of P, 
No. 1. 

2. Age (vs. 20, 26). See ch. vi.-ix., Marks of P, 
No. 2. 

3. Tbin beget (ver. 19). See ch. vi.-ix., Marks of P, 
No. 20.' 

4. Paddan-aram (ver. 20) ; occurs besides in P xxviii. 
2, 5-7 ; xxxv. 9, 26 ; in xxxi. 18, xxxiii. 18, it is as- 
signed to P in a JE connection ; in xlvi. 15 the critics 
are not agreed whether it belongs to P. See ch. xxiv., 
Marks of J, No. 3. 

5. Bethuel, the Aramaean (ver. 20). Bethuel the father 



ESAU AND JACOB (CH. XXV. 19-34) 321 

and Laban the brother of Bebekah are here called Ara- 
maeans, in contrast with the Canaanites, with whom 
Isaac was not to ally himself ; so for a like reason in 
xxviii. 5 P, though not in ver. 2 P, where the same end 
is accomplished by calling Bethuel the father and Laban 
the brother of Jacob's mother. Laban is also called the 
Aramaean in E (xxxi. 20, 24) ; and he is spoken of with- 
out this epithet in P (xlvi. 18, 25). Moreover, Bethuel 
and Laban were Aramaeans according to J, since they 
lived in Aram-naharaim (xxiv. 10 J). The employment 
or non-employment of the epithet Aramaean in connection 
with their names is dependent, therefore, not upon the 
usage of particular documents, but upon the sense to be 
conveyed. 

MARKS OF J 

1. nsny entreat (ver. 21) ; nowhere else in Genesis ; only 
besides in the Hexateuch, Ex. viii. 4, 5, 24, 25, 26 (E. 
V., vs. 8, 9, 28, 29, 30) ; x. 18, all which are referred 
to J. 

2. WE younger (ver. 23). See ch. xix. 29-38, Marks 
of J, No/ 2. 

3. " The similarity of vs. 24-26 to xxxviii. 27 sqq." may 
be an indication of the common authorship of these pas- 
sages, but gives no proof that other passages are from a 
different author. 

Dillmann claims that vs. 25 and 27 are " overloaded " 
by the insertion of words from an assumed parallel ac- 
count by E. In proof of this he points to "red " (ver. 25), 
as an explanation of Edom, conflicting with that in ver. 
30, and the duplicate characterization of both Edom and 
Jacob, ver. 27. But this " overloading " never seems to 
have dawned upon Dillmann himself until he hit upon 
this expedient for providing at least a semblance of ma- 
terial for E in a paragraph which, as he now confesses, 
21 



322 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

" coheres well together," but the contents of which are 
presupposed alike in E and in J. 

Dillmann remarks upon the indefinite singular, " one 
called " (ver. 26), contrasted with the plural, " they called " 
(ver. 25), as suggestive of a different document ; but Hup- 
feld points to the frequent use of the indefinite singular 
in passages attributed to J, e.g., xi. 9; xvi. 14; xxvii. 36 ; 
xxxiii. 17 ; xxxviii. 29, 30. 

ISAAC IN GERAR AND BEERSHEBA (CH. XXYI. 1-33) 

This chapter (except vs. 34, 35, P), is in the main as- 
signed to J, but unfilled gaps are thus created in both 
the other documents. We look in vain in P for a divine 
grant of the land to Isaac, such as is referred to in xxxv. 
12 P, or for a covenant of God with him mentioned Ex. 
ii. 24 P, or for God appearing to him as he is declared 
to have done, Ex. vi. 3 ] P. These are all to be found in 
the chapter before us, but nowhere else. These passages 
in P must, therefore, refer to what is contained in J, 
which is contrary to the hypothesis, or it must be as- 
sumed here again that P had just such an account as we 
find in J, but E has omitted it. So when E (xlvi. 1) 
speaks of Jacob coming to Beersheba and there offering 
sacrifices to the God of his father Isaac, there is a plain 
allusion to the altar which Isaac had built there (xxvi. 
25). When Jacob left his father's house for Haran, he 
went out from Beersheba (xxviii. 10 E), implying Isaac's 
residence there, as stated xxvi. 23, 25, but nowhere in 
E. Either E alludes to J, or he must have related the 
same that is in J, and R has not preserved it. 

When we thus find throughout the book of Genesis the 

1 Jehovah's revelation of himself (xxvi. 24) as the God of Ahraham 
contains a specific allusion to xvii. 1, and was so understood hy Isaac 
(xxviii. 3, 4). 



ISAAC IX GERAR (CH. XXVI. 1-33) > 323 

different documents tied together by cross-references, 
does not the divisive hypothesis require too many auxil- 
iary hypotheses for its support ? It asks us in every in- 
stance to assume that the reference is not to the passage 
which is plainly written before us, and to which it ex- 
actly corresponds, but to certain hypothetical passages 
which may once have existed, but of which there is no 
other evidence than that the exigencies of the hypothe- 
sis demand it. 

A doublet is suspected in vs. 1-6. It is said that 2b 
is incompatible with lc and 3a. Isaac is already in the 
land to which the Lokd is to tell him to go. Accordingly 
la, 2b, 6, are assigned to E, thus : "And there was a fam- 
ine in the land ; and (God) said to (Isaac), Go not down 
into Egypt ; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee ; and 
Isaac dwelt in Gerar." Then lc, 2a, 3a, are given to J, 
thus : " And Isaac went unto Abimelech, king of the 
Philistines, unto Gerar. And Jehovah appeared unto 
him and said, Sojourn in this land, and I will be with 
thee, and will bless thee." But the fact that by ingenious 
slicing and piecing two seemingly complete paragraphs 
can be constructed out of one does not prove that the 
latter is of duplicate origin. The apparent lack of continu- 
ity which gives offence to the critics in these verses is of 
precisely the same nature as that in xxiv. 29, 30, which 
has been before explained. In xxvi. 1 the mention of 
the famine is immediately followed by the statement that 
Isaac went to Gerar to escape it. It is then added with 
more particularity how he came to make his abode in 
Gerar, instead of passing on to Egypt after the example 
of his father in similar circumstances (xii. 10), and accord- 
ing to his own original intention. Jehovah directed him 
to dwell in the land that he should tell him of, which was 
immediately explained to be the land in which he then 
was. The explicit allusion to the "first famine that was 



324 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

in the days of Abraham " (lb), is stricken from the text 
and referred to B, because E had not spoken of that 
famine ; whereas it simply proves the falsity of the criti- 
cal partition which assigns ver. la to a different docu- 
ment from xii. 10. 

Ys. 3b-5 is also expunged as a later addition to the 
text for two reasons : 

1st. In order to get rid of its testimony in favor of xxii. 
15-18, which the critics attribute to E ; because if here re- 
ferred to and cited by J it must be genuine and original. 

2d. Because the legal phrases in ver. 5 are inappropri- 
ate to the times of the patriarchs. 

But (1) this verse is in exact accord with others which 
show great solicitude to make it clear that Abraham and 
his seed were chosen of Jehovah, not to be his favorites 
irrespective of character, but to found a pious, God-fear- 
ing, obedient race (xvii. 1, 2 ; xviii. 19). 

(2) Mention is made of several divine injunctions given 
to Abraham. He was commanded to leave his country, 
to perform specified rites in the transaction of the cove- 
nant, to institute circumcision, to offer up Isaac. He 
was required to exercise faith in God's promises in spite 
of long delays and discouraging circumstances. He ob- 
served sacrificial worship and called on the name of the 
Lord. He recognized the sanctity of an oath (xiv. 22), 
and dealt generously with Lot, uprightly with the chil- 
dren of Heth and Abimelech, and in the strictest honesty 
with the king of Sodom. The direction to walk before 
God and be perfect (xvii. 1 ; xxiv. 40), and his confidence 
that God the judge of all the earth would do right in re- 
spect to the righteous and the wicked (xviii. 25), imply 
his possession of a standard of rectitude. So, although 
no formal code may have been given to Abraham, it is 
not inappropriate to speak of " commandments, statutes, 
and laws," which he had obeyed. 



ISAAC IN GERAR (CH. XXVI. 1-33) 325 

(3) The heaping together of these various terms is cer- 
tainly suggestive of the Mosaic legislation (cf. Ex. xv. 
26 ; xvi. 28, etc.). And what is more natural than that 
the great legislator, who in recording the history of their 
ancestors had prominent regard to the instruction of his 
contemporaries, should commend the obedience of Abra- 
ham in terms which would make it a fit model for them- 
selves ? 

Isaac's life was to such an extent an imitation of his 
father's that no surprise need be felt at his even copying 
his faults and pretending that his wife was his sister (vs. 
7-llj. A stratagem that has proved successful once is 
very likely to be tried again. 

Nor does it create any special difficulty in respect to 
the recorded visit of Abimelech and Phicol to Isaac at 
Beersheba (vs. 26-31) that a king and general of the 
same name had covenanted at the same place with Abra- 
ham (xxi. 22-32). That successive Philistine kings 
should bear the name Abimelech is no more strange 
than the Pharaohs of Egypt, or the Caesars of Home, or 
two Napoleons emperors of France, or two presidents of 
the United States named John Adams. Phicol may for 
aught that anyone knows have been an official title, or 
he may have been the namesake of his predecessor. 
That the name Beersheba should be reimposed on this 
occasion (ver. 33) is not strange. That the writer re- 
garded it not as a new appellation, but as fresh sanction 
given to one already in existence, is plain from his use 
of it (ver. 23), and it is in precise accordance with the 
general statements (vs. 15, 18) that Isaac had renewed 
the names previously given to wells by his father. 
These verses are interpolations by B in the opinion of 
the critics, for the reason (which others may not deem 
conclusive) that J cannot be supposed to have referred 
to what is recorded in E. 



326 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

The name Jehovah is evidently in place in this chapter. 
Jehovah appears to Isaac (vs. 2, 24) ; and Isaac called on 
the name of Jehovah (ver. 25). Jehovah blessed him 
(ver. 12) and made room for him (ver. 22) ; so that even 
Abimelech recognized the fact that Isaac's God Jehovah 
was with him (ver. 28), and blessed him (ver. 29). In 
xxv. 11 it had been said that Elohini blessed him. This 
is suggestive of the two aspects under which his out- 
ward prosperity could be regarded as the gift of his 
covenant God, or of the God of nature and of providence. 
This is no more surprising than when the Psalmist makes 
his appeal in successive clauses to the God of Israel and 
the God of the universe : (Ps. x. 12) " Arise, O Jehovah ; 
O Elohini, lift up thine hand." (Ps. xvii. 1, 6) " O Je- 
hovah, attend unto my cry ; . . . thou wilt hear me, 
O Elohim." 

MAEKS OF J 

1. najHtt TOyofcdr to look upon (ver. 7). See ch. xxiv., 
Marks of J, No. 13. 

2. vpj?ti?«i look out (ver. 8). See ch. xviii., xix., Marks 
of J, No. 6. 

3. nbtf oath (ver. 28). Besides in J xxiv. 41 bis ; in P 
Lev. v." i ; Num. v. 21 bis, 23, 27 ; in D Dent. xxix. 11, 13, 
18, 19, 20 (E. V., vs. 12, 14, 19, 20, 21) ; xxx. 7 ; all in 
the Hexateuch. 

4. mm -pta blessed of Jehovah (ver. 29) ; in the Hexa- 
teuch besides only xxiv. 31 J; a similar phrase, "blessed 
of God Most High " xiv. 19, which is not referred to J. 

5. irfiST D& ; 2 fcHp^l called upon the name of Jehovah (ver. 
25). Prayer and worship were addressed to Jehovah, 
the God of revelation and of grace. This divine name 
is the appropriate one in such connections, and is not 
traceable to the usage of a particular document. 

6. " The peril of Eebekah (vs. 7-11), and the origin of 



ISAAC IN GERAR (CH. XXYI. 1-33) 327 

the name Beersheba " (vs. 25-33) are not variant accounts 
of the transactions recorded in ch. xx. and xxi. 22-32, but 
are distinct events occurring at different times and under 
other circumstances. Even on the hypothesis of the 
critics they were so regarded by the redactor. If they 
either were, or were supposed to be, distinct events, there 
is no reason why they may not have been related by the 
same writer. They afford no ground, consequently, for 
the assumption of separate documents. 

Dillmann remarks that in this chapter " much in the 
form of expression reminds of E, cf . ver. 10 and xx. 9 ; 
ver. 28 and xxi. 22 ; ver. 29 and xxi. 23 ; tTH&rby con- 
cerning (ver. 32 and xxi. 11, 25) ; the names (ver. 26)." 
He undertakes to account for this by assuming that J had 
the document E before him and borrowed expressions 
from it. The divisive hypothesis must thus be supported 
by a fresh hypothesis, for which there is no foundation 
but the very hypothesis which it is adduced to support. 
It will be observed that the admitted points of similarity 
belong to the narrative of Eebekah's peril and the affair 
at Beersheba. If now the author of ch. xxvi. had the cor- 
responding narrative in chs. xx., xxi., before him as he 
wrote, he was aware that Abraham had had experiences 
similar to those which he was recording of Isaac. And 
thus the argument of the critics for a diversity of docu- 
ments is completely nullified by their own confession. 
And the only remaining alternative is to accept the sim- 
ple and natural inference, from the correspondences be- 
tween the narratives, that both are from the pen of the 
same writer. 

It is also worth noting that " digged," in vs. 15, 18, 
32, is in Hebrew isn, but in ver. 25 it is rro, a word 
which occurs nowhere else in J, and is only found in the 
Hexateuch in E, viz., Gen. 1. 5 ; Ex. xxi. 33 ; Num. xxi. 
18. It thus appears that the same writer can use two 



328 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

different words to express the same thing with no appar- 
ent reason for making the change ; and this even though 
in the opinion of the critics one of the words is nowhere 
else used by him. 

Jacob's blessing and depasture (ch. xxvi. 34-xxviii. 9) 

The narrative in ch. xxvii. is indispensable to both J 
and E, as shown alike by its connection with what pre- 
cedes and what follows. It has already been seen that 
the critics find it necessary to assume that xxv. 21-34 
belonged alike to both of these documents, and that the 
portions extracted from one had their equivalents also in 
the other. But this paragraph was directly preparatory 
to ch. xxvii. The pre-announcement of the precedence of 
the younger child (ver. 23), the hairy skin of Esau (ver. 
25), Esau's skill in hunting arid Jacob's domestic habits 
(ver. 27), Isaac's partiality for Esau, and relish for his 
venison, and Eebekah's preference for Jacob (ver. 28), are 
mentioned with a view to this chapter, and the sale of 
the birthright (vs. 29-34) is explicitly referred to, xxvii. 
36. 

In like manner, as is stated by "Wellhausen, "we have 
in xxviii. 10-22 a piece from E almost complete, together 
with a large fragment from J, which proves that J con- 
tained the same narrative and in the same place (cf. ver. 
15 and vs. 20, 21). It hence follows by concluding back- 
ward that both E and J related the occasion of Jacob's 
flight, without which it would be without a motive and 
unintelligible. There must necessarily have been a his- 
tory like that in ch. xxvii. in both sources, as appears 
also from ch. xxxii. ; " and, as Dillmann adds, xxxv. 3, 
7, E. 

"While, however, it is essential to find both J and E in 
this chapter, the critics are obliged to acknowledge that 



ISAAC BLESSES JACOB (CH. XXYI. 34-XXYIII. 9) 329 

they cannot disentangle them so as to separate the two 
accounts, or even to discover any points of difference be- 
tween them. The utmost that they can do is to point 
out several instances of what they consider doublets, and 
claim on this account that the text is composite, though 
they are unable to resolve it into its original constitu- 
ents. 

It is claimed that vs. 24-27a repeats vs. 21-23 ; that 
ver. 24, instead of progressing from ver. 23, goes back to 
ver. 21, and ver. 23 is as far advanced as ver. 27a, each 
ending, " and he blessed him." But this is precisely 
like other alleged doublets before reviewed. The ulti- 
mate result is first summarily stated (ver. 23b) ; then 
further particulars are added (vs. 24-27a), which led up 
to this result. The paragraphs in question are mutually 
supplementary ; they are certainly not mutually exclu- 
sive. The blind old patriarch, doubtful of his son's 
identity, first insists upon feeling him (vs. 21-23), and 
obliges him to say whether he is really Esau (ver. 21). 
Then, after partaking of what had been brought him, he 
asks, as a final test, to kiss him, that he may smell the 
odor of his raiment (ver. 27). There is in all this no 
repetition, but a steady, onward progress to the final 
issue. 

It is further said that ver. 30b repeats 30a, which it 
does not ; it more exactly defines the time intended. 
Isaac had ended his blessing, and Jacob had just gone 
out when Esau came in. Also that vs. 35-38 repeat vs. 
33, 34 ; but the only repetition is that of Esau's impor- 
tunate entreaty, which is as natural as it is touching. 
Ver. 44b is repeated in ver. 45a, because this was the 
thing uppermost in llebekah's thoughts. She repeats 
and amplifies what she had said about Esau's fury sub- 
siding, in order to impress upon Jacob her own convic- 
tion that his brother's rage was only temporary. If 



330 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

Jacob would but absent himself for a few days it would 
be over, and she would send and fetch him home again. 
She is concerned to present her project to him in the 
most persuasive way, that he may be induced to do what 
she feels to be necessary to save his life. 

In their eagerness to find material for separate docu- 
ments, or evidence of duplicate accounts, the critics seem 
to be ever ready to sacrifice the force and beauty of the 
narratives with which they deal. They dissect them to 
the quick, rending them into feeble or incoherent frag- 
ments, or they pare them down by the assumption of 
doublets to the baldest forms of intelligible statement, 
and thus strip them of those affecting details, which lend 
them such a charm, because so true to nature. This in- 
volves the absurdity of assuming that two jejune or frag- 
mentary accounts, pieced mechanically together, have 
produced narratives which are not only consistent and 
complete, but full of animation and dramatic power. 

An attempt is made to establish a difference between 
J and E on the one hand, and P on the other, as to the 
reason why Jacob went to Paddan-aram. According to 
the former (ch. xxvii. 1-45), it is to flee from his brother, 
whom he has enraged by defrauding him of his father's 
blessing. According to the latter (xxvi. 34, 35 ; xxviii. 
1-9), that he may not marry among the Canaanites, as 
Esau had done, to the great grief of his parents, but ob- 
tain a wife from among his kindred. P, we are told, 
knows of no hostility between the brothers. But all 
this is spoiled by the statement in xxviii. 7, that " Jacob 
obeyed his father and Ms mother, and was gone to Paddan- 
aram." His father sent him to get a wife (xxviii. 1-9) ; 
but his mother (xxvii. 42-45) to escape Esau's fury ; and 
there is no incompatibility between these two objects. 
In order to gain Isaac over to her plan without acquaint- 
ing him with Esau's murderous designs, Eebekah simply 



ISAAC BLESSES JACOB (CH. XXYI. 34-XXYIII. 9) 331 

urges her dissatisfaction with the wives of Esau, and her 
apprehension lest Jacob might contract a similar mar- 
riage with some one of the daughters of the land. Isaac 
had one object in mind, Bebekah another. There is 
nothing for the critics to do, therefore, but to pronounce 
the unwelcome words, " and his mother," an interpola- 
tion. In order to prove their point they must first ad- 
just the text to suit it. 

But tinkering the text in a single passage will not re- 
lieve them in the present instance. The hostility of 
Esau is embedded in the entire narrative, and cannot be 
sundered from it. Why did Jacob go alone and unat- 
tended in quest of a wife, without the retinue or the 
costly presents for his bride, befitting his rank and 
wealth ? When Abraham desired a wife for Isaac he 
sent a princely embassy to woo Kebekah, and conduct 
her to her future home. Why was Jacob's suit so dif- 
ferently managed, although Isaac imitated Abraham in 
everything else ? And why did Jacob remain away 
from his parents and his home, and from the land sacred 
as the gift of God, for so many long years till his twelve 
sons were born (xxxv. 26 P) ? This is wholly unac- 
counted for except by the deadly hostility of Esau. Even 
the fragmentary notices accorded to P of the sojourn in 
Paddan-aram thus imply that Jacob had grievously of- 
fended Esau ; so that here again P either refers to what 
J and E alone recorded, or else had given a similar ac- 
count of the fraud perpetrated by Jacob, which R has 
not retained. 

The name Jehovah occurs appropriately (xxvii. 7, 20) 
as the God of Isaac, in whose name and by whose au- 
thority the blessing was to be pronounced. Only in the 
blessing itself Jehovah alternates with Elohim in the 
parallelisms of poetry (vs. 27, 28). On this ground Dill- 
mann assigns vs. 27b, 29b, to J, and vs. 28, 29a, to E. 



332 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

The consequence of which is that in J a curse is pro- 
nounced upon those who curse Jacob, and a blessing upon 
those who bless him, but not a single blessing bestowed 
directly upon Jacob himself. Kautzsch tries to mend the 
matter by a different distribution; but in doing so he 
separates the last clause of ver. 28 from the sentence to 
which it belongs, so that " plenty of corn and wine " stands 
wholly unconnected, and, of course, unmeaning. No criti- 
cal severance of this closely connected blessing is either 
admissible or necessary. Elohim, in ver. 28, does not re- 
quire the assumption of a different document from the 
Jehovah of ver. 27 any more than such an assumption is 
demanded by the change of divine names in Ps. xlvii. 2, 
3 (E. V., vs. 1, 2). The Jehovah of the blessing is at the 
same time the God of universal nature, Elohim, who 
from his general beneficence will bestow "the dew of 
heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn 
and wine." In taking leave of Jacob Isaac pronounces 
upon him the blessing of Abraham (xxviii. 4) ; he is thus 
led to borrow the language of that signal revelation to 
Abraham when Jehovah made himself known as God 
Almighty (xvii. 1), and gave him promises with a special 
emphasis, which are here repeated. Hence the El Shad- 
dai (ver. 3) and Elohim (ver. 4). 

MAKES OF P (XXVI. 34, 35 ; XXVIII. 1-9) 

1. " The unadorned character of the narration." But 
in what respect is the statement of Esau's marriage 
(xxvi. 34, 35) more " unadorned " than that of Abram 
and Nahor (xi. 29 J), or Nahor's family table (xxii. 20-24 
J) ? or Isaac's charge and commission to Jacob (xxviii. 
1-5), than the precisely similar one of Abraham in re- 
spect to Isaac (xxiv. 1-10) ? 

2. " The chronological statement (xxvi. 34)." See ch. 
vi.-ix., Marks of P, No. 2; ch. xvi., Marks of P, No. 1. 



ISAAC BLESSES JACOB (CH. XXVI. 34-XXVIII. 9) 333 

3. 12?D3 niDS daughters of Canaan (xxviii. 1, 6, 8). See 
ch. xxiv., Marks of J, No. 4. 

4. D'ltf f-jfi Paddan-aram (vs. 2, 5-7). See cli. xxv. 19- 
34, Marks of P, No. 4. 

5. 'ftjo btf 6roc2 Almighty (ver. 3). Explained above ; 
see also ch. xvii., p. 221, and Marks of P, No. 6. 

6. ti^fey bnp company of peoples (ver. 3). See ch. xvii., 
Marks of P, No. 2. 

7. D*HM3 sojournings (ver. 4). See ch. xvii., Marks of 

p, No. s: " 

8. ^B'nSln the Aramaean (ver. 5). See ch. xxv. 19-34, 
Marks of P, No. 5. 

MAEKS OF J (XXVII. 1-45) 

1. mpPl send good speed (ver. 20). See ch. xxiv., 
Marks of J, No. 15. 

2. r&3 *\Wti£ w^ew he made an end (ver. 30) ; besides in 
J, xviii. 33 ; xxiv. 22 ; xliii. 2 ; the same construction of n^S, 
not introduced by ^itOKS (which is purely incidental), in 
J, xxiv. 15, 19, 45 ; Num. xvi. 31 ; Josh. viii. 24 ; in E 
Josh. x. 20 ; in P, Gen. xvii. 22 ; xlix. 33 ; Ex. xxxi. 18 
xxxiv. 33 ; Lev. xvi. 20 ; Num. vii. 1 ; Josh, xix., 49, 51 
alleged later stratum of P, Num. iv. 15 ; in Ed, Deut 
xxxi. 24 ; in D, Deut. xxxii. 45 ; all in the Hexateuch. 

3. iabm *VQtf said in his heart (ver. 41). See ch. xxiv. 
Marks of J, No. 17. 

4. "The house" (ver. 15). "J speaks of a house (not 
tent) of Isaac, as he also lets Lot live in one in Sodom 
(xix. 2 sqq.), and Jacob build one at Succoth (xxxiii. 17)." 
But E also speaks of Jacob coming back to his father's 
house (xxviii. 21). 

MARKS OF E 

1. *jtf only (vs. 13, 30) as against p*y only (xix. 8 ; xxiv. 
8 J). -jg occurs besides in Genesis in E, xx. 12 ; in J, vii. 



334 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

23 ; xviii. 32 ; xxvi. 9 ; xxix. 14 ; xliv. 28 ; in P, ix. 4, 5 ; 
xxiii. 13 ; xxxiv. 15, 22, 23. pn occurs repeatedly in J as 
well as E. See ch. vi. 1-8, Marks of J, No. 7. 

2. Dnt33 before (vs. 4, 33) as against lafeb (vs. 7, 10). 
This particle occurs in J and P as well as E. See chs. 
xviii., xix., Marks of J, No. 13. 

3. " The form of address (vs. lb, 18)," as in E, xxii. 1, 
7, 11 ; xxxi. 11 ; xxxvii. 13 ; xlvi. 2 ; Ex. iii. 4. But 
xxii. 11 is referred to E in spite of the name Jehovah ; 
and there is no propriety in sundering xxvii. lb, 18, from 
the connection in which they stand. 

4. h itftt" b TP exceedingly (vs. 33, 34) ; nowhere else in the 
Hexateuch. 

It is apparent that the grounds adduced for the parti- 
tion of ch. xxvii. between J and E are flimsy enough. 
The alleged doublets are no doublets at all ; the verbal 
criteria amount to nothing. But the necessity remains. 
Both the preceding and the subsequent history, as as- 
signed respectively to J and E, presuppose what is nar- 
rated in this chapter. The only conclusion consistent 
with the divisive hypothesis is that it must in substance 
have been contained in both these documents. And as 
the critics find it impossible to partition the narrative, 
they are compelled to content themselves with the at- 
tempt to discover traces of both J and E ; and these 
traces seem to be hard to find. They are repeatedly 
pressed by the same difficulty in their endeavor to carry 
the hypothesis through the intractable material that yet 
remains ; and they are obliged to resort to the most 
questionable expedients to compass their end. 

The last verse of ch. xxvii. links it closely to ch. 
xxviii. Bebekah, impressed with Jacob's peril from his 
enraged brother, induces Isaac to send him away to ob- 
tain a wife. It is necessary, therefore, to get rid of this 
verse with its evidence of unity, and it is accordingly at- 



(CH. XXVIII. 10-22) 335 

tributed to the redactor ; and the rather as it tends still 
farther to combine J and P by explicit reference to P 
(xxvi. 34, 35), and borrowing its expressions, "daughters 
of Heth," " daughters of the land," as xxiii. 3, xxxiv. 1, 
on the one hand, and by similarity to J on the other. Cf . 
" what good shall my life do me," with xxv. 22, " where- 
fore do I live ? " 

Jacob's dkeam (ch. xxyiii. 10-22) 

In xxyiii. 5, 7 the general statement is made that 
Jacob had set out for Paddan-aram ; in ys. 10-22 a 
more particular account is given of what befell him on 
the way. Jehovah appeared to him as he was leaving 
the promised land, to assure him of divine protection 
wherever he should go, and of a safe return and especially 
to renew to him the promises made to his fathers of the 
possession of the land in all its length and breadth, and 
a blessing to all nations through his seed. Like prom- 
ises were made in similar circumstances to Isaac (xxvi. 
2-4), and to Jacob himself, when at a later period he 
was about to go down into Egypt (xlvi. 3, 4). Cf. a like 
promise made to Abraham, when the future sojourn of 
his seed in a foreign land was shown to him (xv. 13-18). 

The general statement above mentioned is by the critics 
given to P, and the particulars included under it to JE. 
It hence results that though P relates (xxviii. 1-9) that 
Jacob was sent to Paddan-aram to obtain a wife, and that 
he actually set out for the purpose, he makes no mention 
of anything that occurred upon his journey thither, or of 
his arrival there, or finding his mother's relatives, or his 
marriage, or anything regarding his long residence there. 
And yet these things must have been mentioned, for they 
are presupposed in what is said elsewhere. In xxxv. 9 
P, God is said to have appeared to Jacob again at Bethel, 



336 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

implying the previous appearance (xxviii. 12 sqq.); xxxi. 
18 P, Jacob leaves Paddan-aram with goods and cattle 
acquired there, implying a previous narrative of how he 
had obtained them ; and xxxv. 23-26 P gives the names 
of his wives and the children born to him in Paddan- 
aram, implying a previous account of his marriage and 
his family. The matters thus alluded to are fully re- 
corded in the sacred narrative, but are by the critics as- 
signed to J and E ; not a syllable respecting them is to 
be found in P, though they are indispensable to the in- 
tegrity of this document. Just that is missing from P 
which the critics have sundered from it, and transferred 
to other supposititious documents. There is here a glar- 
ing lack of continuity in P, as well as repeated references 
in P to the contents of J and E ; both of which are in- 
consistent with the hypothesis of separate and indepen- 
dent documents. 

Constrained by the occurrence in this passage of both 
Elohim (vs. 12, 17 sqq.) and Jehovah (vs. 13-16) the 
critics undertake to parcel vs. 10-22 between E and J. 
Wellhausen, followed by Kautzsch (1st edition) and 
Stade, 1 gives vs. 10-12, 17, 18, 20, 21a, 22, to E, and the 
rest to J, except 19b, 21b, which are assigned to E. Ac- 
cordingly E speaks of a dream, in which Jacob saw a 
ladder and angels, but received no accompanying revela- 
tion. J makes no mention of any ladder or angels, but 
only of the appearance of Jehovah, who stood beside 
Jacob and gave him promises for the present and the 
future. Thus divided, the vision which was granted to 
Jacob, according to E, had no special adaptation to his 
existing circumstances, but is supposed to be a legend 
here recorded with the view of enhancing the sacredness 
of the sanctuary that existed at Bethel in later times. 
And the point of it is that on that spot communication 
1 Geschichte des Volkes Israel, p. 60. 



jacobV DREAM (CH. XXVIII. 10-22) 337 

was opened between earth and heaven by a ladder on 
which celestial beings ascended and descended. But while 
in the opinion of the critics the whole intent of E was to 
glorify the sanctuary at Bethel, he does not once men- 
tion Bethel, nor give any intimation where it was that 
this vision occurred. The name of the place is only to 
be found in ver. 19a, which is attributed to J. 1 

Moreover, the vision of the ladder and the angels (ver. 
12) cannot be separated from the revelation of Jehovah 
which follows (ver. 13) and interprets it (ver. 15), or rather 
which is the most essential part of the whole supernat- 
ural manifestation. In vs. 11, 12, Jacob goes to sleep 
and dreams ; in ver. 16 he awakes ; this is evidently a 
continuation of the preceding and cannot be referred to 
a separate document. 2 In its present connection Tby 
upon it or above it (ver. 13) plainly refers to the ladder 
(ver. 12). To sunder it from the preceding and insist 
that it should be rendered beside Mm, is gratuitously to 
charge the redactor with having falsified its meaning. 
A ladder reaching to the skies, on which angels were 
ascending and descending, might entitle the place to be 
called " the gate of heaven," but not " the house of God " 
(ver. 17) ; nor could it be said that God there appeared 
unto Jacob (xxxv. 1, 7, E). In his vow (vs. 20, 21a) 
Jacob adopts the very terms of the promise which Je- 

1 Dillmann says, "It may be doubted from which source ver. 19 has 
been derived ; it probably belongs to both, as it cannot be dispensed 
with in either ; E in particular presupposes the name Bethel as already 
existing " (xxxi. 13 ; xxxv. 3). 

2 In order to escape this difficulty Stade ventures the suggestion : " It 
may very well be supposed that in the original connection of J the 
manifestation did not take place in a dream, so that 'And Jacob 
awaked out of his sleep,' in ver. 16, has been inserted from E. This is 
a mode of evasion to which the critics frequently resort with the view 
of ridding themselves of unwelcome clauses or words. Here it leaves 
the following verb ' said ' without a subject." 



338 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

hovah had just made (ver. 15) ; so that these cannot be 
from distinct documents. And ver. 21b, of which the 
critics try to rid themselves because of its " Jehovah," is 
most appropriate where it stands, whether it continues 
the preamble, 1 or introduces Jacob's own pledge. Jeho- 
vah had announced himself as the God of Abraham and 
of Isaac (ver. 13), would he likewise be, as was implied 
in his promise, Jacob's God ? But if this clause be, as 
the critics will have it, an insertion from J or an addi- 
tion by R, it remains to be explained how either J or 
R should have fallen upon a characteristic phrase of P 
(xvii. 7 ; Ex. vi. 7 ; xxix. 45). 

Verses 10-12 are absolutely necessary to explain the 
situation in vs. 13-16 J ; without them there is no sug- 
gestion how Jacob came to be at Bethel. But they are 
equally necessary to vs. 17, 18, E. If, however, under 
the pressure of this latter necessity vs. 10-12 are given 
to E, another incongruity will result. The mention of 
Beersheba as Jacob's point of departure (ver. 10) im- 
plies Isaac's residence there, as ' recorded by J (xxvi. 33) 
but not by E. And Haran, to which he was going, also 
points to J (xxvii. 43 ; xxix. 4) ; it does not occur in E. 
Hence Hupfeld, Dillmann, and Kautzsch (2d edition) 
give ver. 10 to J ; but then E lacks any proper beginning. 
Hupfeld made the attempt to split ver. 11 by assigning 

1 Hengstenberg (Beitrage, ii. , p. 370), followed by Tuch and Baumgar- 
ten, extends the preamble to the end of ver. 21, as in the margin of the 
Revised Version, " and Jehovah will be my God, then this stone," etc. 
This corresponds with the change of tenses from preterite to future at 
that point in the sentence, and with the common meaning of the 
phrase, "to be the God of anyone," e.g. , ver. 13, which is elsewhere 
suggestive of the divine regard rather than of the human obligation of 
worship. Delitzsch, Knobel, and Dillmann prefer the rendering of the 
A. V. and the text of the R. V., which is also that of the LXX. and the 
Vulgate. But it is questionable whether they are not influenced in 
their decision by the critical partition which sunders vs. 20, 21, from 
ver. 13. 



JACOB'S DKEAM (CH. XXVIII. 10-22) 339 

" he lighted upon a certain place and took one of the 
stones of the place and put it under his head," to E, and 
" he tarried there (where ?) all night because the sun was 
set, and lay down in that place to sleep," to J ; but he 
gave it up as impracticable. Any division of the pas- 
sage creates a gap in both documents, neither of which 
can be filled but by trenching upon the other. The 
whole passage is, moreover, closely linked with ch. 
xxvii., where we have found that a critical division is 
equally impracticable. 

In order to make out the composite character of the 
passage a doublet is claimed in vs. 16, 17. With the 
best endeavor to do so I have not been able to compre- 
hend the point of view from which ver. 17 can be con- 
sidered indicative of a different writer from ver. 16, un- 
less it be on the sole ground of the change of divine 
names. It is surely the most natural and appropriate 
exclamation under the circumstances. Yer. 17 does not 
duplicate ver. 16, but is its suitable sequel. Neither is 
ver. 22 a duplicate of ver. 19. The relation is not that 
of equivalence but of dependence. Because God had 
here manifested his presence Jacob named the place 
Bethel, "a house of God." And if God would verify 
the promise there given (ver. 15), Jacob pledges himself 
to regard this spot as in reality what this name denoted : 
it should be to him a house of God, and here he would 
consecrate a tenth of all to him. 

Wellhausen finds indications of a diversity of writers 
in the order in which the points of the compass are 
named, J (xxviii. 14) W., E., N., S., but B (xiii. 14) N., 
S., E., W. ; in "all the families of the earth" F.nSM 
rmatn (xii. 3 ; xxviii. 14 J), compared with " all the na- 
tions of the earth " "pari ^15 (xviii. 18 B) ; and in " thee 
and thy seed " (xiii. 15 B), and an implied reference to 
" seed" (xviii. 18 B) compared with " in thee " (xii. 3 J), 



340 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

whence he infers that " in thy seed " (xxviii. 14 J) is an 
addition by R. But Dillmann and others have no diffi- 
culty in attributing all these passages alike to J, and see 
no occasion for assuming any insertion or manipulation 
by R. The fact is that where distinct writers are as- 
sumed on independent grounds there is no difficulty in 
gathering up arguments from varying words and phrases 
to sustain a predetermined conclusion ; but these will be 
set aside without ceremony by the critics themselves 
when they have no end to be answered by them. 

In Jacob's dream Jehovah, the God of the chosen 
race, appeared to him (xxviii. 13, 16), in order to assure 
him that though temporarily exiled from his father's 
house he would not on that account be severed from the 
God of his father, as Ishmael had been when sent away 
from Abraham's household, and Lot when his connec- 
tion with Abraham was finally cut off by his passing be- 
yond the limit of the promised land. God was thence- 
forward Elohim to them as to all who were aliens to the 
chosen race. But Jacob was still under the guardianship 
of Jehovah, who would continue with him wherever he 
might go. The angels (ver. 12), however, are not called 
" angels of Jehovah," which never occurs in the Penta- 
teuch, but " angels of Elohim," as xxxii. 2 (E. V. ver. 1), 
who are thus distinguished from messengers of men — the 
Hebrew word for " angel " properly meaning " messen- 
ger." This does not mark a distinction between the docu- 
ments, as though J knew of but one angel, " the angel of 
Jehovah," the divine angel, while E speaks of " angels ; " 
for J has " angels " in the plural (xix. 1, 15). The place 
where Jehovah had thus revealed himself Jacob calls 
" the house of God " and " the gate of heaven," God in 
contrast with man, as heaven with earth. It was a spot 
marked by a divine manifestation. The critical sever- 
ance will not answer here, for, as already stated, if vs. 13- 



Jacob's dream (ch. xxviii. 10-22) 341 

16 be exscinded as belonging to J, the vision of angels 
(ver. 12) alone would not entitle it to be called the house 
of God (ver. 17). The scene of Jehovah's appearing is 
called " Beth-El," precisely as Hannah called her child 
" Samu-El, because I have asked him of Jehovah " (1 
Sam. i. 20). In Jacob's vow (vs. 20, 22) the specifica- 
tions respect God's general providential care, and hence 
he uses Elohim, while nevertheless in a manner perplex- 
ing to the critics, who find themselves obliged to erase 
the offending clause, he recognizes Jehovah as the God 
(ver. 21) to whom he makes his appeal and gives his 
pledge. 

MARKS OF J (VS. 10, 13-16, 19a) 

1. "The contents and form of the promises (vs. 13- 
16) " ; cf. xiii. 14, 16 ; xii. 3 ; xviii. 18. See chs. xviii., 
xix., Marks of J, No. 25. 

2. b# 2222 stand on or over (ver. 14) ; elsewhere in J, 
xviii. 2 ; xxiv. 13, 43 ; xlv. 1 ; Ex. xxxiii. 21 ; xxxiv. 2 ; 
in E, Ex. vii. 15 ; xvii. 9 ; xviii. 14 ; Num. xxiii. 6, 17. 

3. y^S break forth, spread abroad (ver. 14); elsewhere 
in J, xxi 30, 43 ; xxxviii. 29 ; Ex. xix. 22, 24 ; in E, Ex. 
i. 12. 

4. iTQ'JK ground, earth, land (vs. 14, 15). This word is 
reckoned a criterion of J, and whenever it is practicable, 
paragraphs or clauses that contain it are for that reason 
referred to J. Nevertheless in repeated instances it can- 
not be excluded from P and E. It is used to denote (1) 
Earth as a material, so in J, Gen. ii. 7, 19 ; iii. 19 ; in E, 
Ex. xx. 24. (2) The soil as tilled and productive, thirty 
times, mostly in J ; as no passage relating to tillage is 
assigned to P, of course there is no occasion for the use 
of the word in this sense ; it is found in E, Ex. xxiii. 
19. (3) The surface of the earth, the ground, not only in 
J, but also in P (Gen. i. 25 ; vi. 20 ; ix. 2) ; and in E, Ex. 



342 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

iii. 5 ; Num. xvi. 30, 31 (with Ha'TO) is given to J, and 
ver. 32a (with "pa) to E, though a continuous sentence 
is thus cut in two, and ver. 32 corresponds to ver. 30, 
and records its fulfilment. (4) The land of Canaan, five 
times ; four of these are referred to J (Gen. xxviii. 15 ; 
Lev. xx. 24, so Dillmann ; Num. xi. 12 ; xxxii. 11 ); and 
one to E (Ex. xx. 12) ; yng is mostly used in this sense 
by J as well as by P and E. (5) The whole earth, twice ; 
in J " all the families of the earth " (Gen. xii. 3 ; xxviii. 
14) ; but the parallel passages have ps (xviii. 18 J, and 
xxii. 18 ; xxvi. 4 referred to K in a J connection). See 
ch. vi. 1-8, Marks of J, No. 3. 

NARKS OF E (VS. 11, 12, 17, 18, 20, 21a, 22) 

1. " These verses have Elohim, but P cannot be re- 
garded as the author on account of xxxv. 9-15." But 
that is not a variant account of the same transaction, and 
as such implying a different author. It is expressly 
stated (xxxv. 9) to be a second divine manifestation in 
this place, thus presupposing the narrative in the passage 
before us. 

2. " The back references (xxxi. 13 ; xxxv. 3, 7) prove 
that it belongs to E." These tend to establish an iden- 
tit} 7 of authorship with those passages, but do not imply 
that they belong to a separate document from the rest of 
the text in which they are found. The same may be said 
of the back reference from xxxii. 13 (E. V., ver. 12) J. 

3. a SttS to light upon (ver. 11) ; elsewhere in E, xxxii. 
2 (E. V. ver. 1) ; in JE, Josh. ii. 16 ; xvii. 10; in P, Gen. 
xxiii. 8 ; Num. xxxv. 19, 21 ; Josh. xvi. 7 ; xix. 11, 22, 26, 
27, 34. 

4. ^p23 D^EJn rose up early in the morning (ver. 18). 
See chs. xviii., xix., Marks of J, No. 26. 

5. " The tithe (ver. 22)." Tithes are spoken of besides 



Jacob's dream (ch. xxviii. 10-22) 343 

in the priest code (Lev. xxvii., Num. xviii.), and the Deu- 
teronomic law, and but once elseAvhere in the Pentateuch, 
viz., Gen. xiv. 20, which Dillmann doubtfully refers to E, 
while at the same time he holds 1 with other critics that 
the first certain trace of E is in Gen. xx. The ascription 
of the passage before us to E on this ground rests thus 
on a very slender basis. It is far more natural to believe 
that as the patriarchal institutions supply the germs 
from which the ritual law was subsequently developed, 
they are recorded for that reason, and by the same hand 
as the law itself. The notion, which the critics seek 
to fasten on P, that the Mosaic ritual had not even 
a germinal existence in the days of the patriarchs, is 
without the slightest foundation in the sacred record, 
or in the nature of things. It is one of the absurdi- 
ties that grow out of sundering what properly belongs 
together. 

6. "The dream (ver. 12)." See ch. xx., Marks of E, 
No. 4. 

In commenting on xii. 8, Dillmann remarks that there 
and xiii. 4 the sacredness of Bethel is traced to Abra- 
ham, while elsewhere (xxviii. 22 ; xxxv. 7 sqq.) it is traced 
to Jacob. In his prefatory remarks upon the section 
now before us, with the view apparently of removing this 
fancied divergence, he observes that in xii. 8 it was a 
place near Bethel, and not Bethel itself, that was conse- 
crated by Abraham. But the sacred writer makes no 
reference whatever to the idolatrous sanctuary subse- 
quently established at Bethel ; least of all is he giviog an 
account of its origin. There is no discrepancy in differ- 
ent patriarchs successively visiting the same place and 
building altars there. These descriptions of patriarchal 
worship are not legends to gain credit for the sanctuary ; 
but the superstition of later ages founded sanctuaries in 

1 Die Bficlier Num. -Jos., p. 615. 



344 THE GENEKATIONS OF ISAAC 

venerated spots, where the patriarchs had worshipped, 
and where God had revealed himself to them. 



JACOB IN HARAN (CHS. XXIX., XXX.) 

The critics here find themselves in a serious muddle. 
According to Hupfeld (" Quellen,"p. 65) ch. xxix. bears so 
evidently the stamp of J that the opposite view, which 
is perfectly arbitrary, needs no refutation. Wellhausen 
is just as confident that xxix. 1-30 is, with trifling excep 
tions, from E, while Dillmann compromises the matter 
by making nearly an equal division, and giving vs. 2-15a 
to J, and the rest almost entirely to E. Hupfeld (" Quel- 
len," p. 43) maintains that xxx. 1-24 continues J's history 
without the trace of a seam, with the same basis and 
presuppositions, the same manner and language ; while 
in the judgment of Wellhausen and Dillmann it is "a 
very remarkable piece of mosaic from J and E." The 
trouble in xxix. 1-30 is that there are no divine names ; 
the trouble is increased in xxix. 31-xxx. 24 by the fact 
that there are divine names. 

Dillmann claims that there is a break in the former of 
these paragraphs at xxix. 15, inasmuch as Laban here 
asks Jacob what wages he shall pay him, though there 
had been no previous mention that Jacob had entered 
Laban's service as a shepherd, or had any thought of 
doing so. There is, of course, a transition to a new sub- 
ject, as must be the case whenever a fresh topic is intro- 
duced ; but it is by no means a violent one, since ver. 14 
speaks of Jacob's abode with Laban, and it is not a re- 
mote supposition that he made himself serviceable during 
his stay (cf. ver. 10). At any rate it fails to justify Dill- 
mann's own division after ver. 15a, in which the subject 
of a recompense for service is already broached. Nor is 
there any implication in vs. 16, 17, that Rachel had not 



JACOB IN HAKAX (CHS. XXIX., XXX.) 345 

been previously spoken of, from which it might be in- 
ferred that vs. 6, 9-12 are from a different document. 
It had not been before mentioned that Laban had two 
daughters, that Rachel was the younger, and that she was 
more attractive than her sister. These facts are intro- 
duced here, since they are necessary to explain Jacob's 
answer (ver. 18) to Laban's proposal. 

The arguments urged to establish the duplicate char- 
acter of the latter paragraph (xxix. 31-xxx. 24) are 
chiefly — 

1. The repeated occurrence of Elohim. 

2. The different explanations given of the names Is- 
sachar, Zebulun, and Joseph. 

To the first of these Hupfeld replies that Elohim in 
xxx. 2, 8 is no criterion, because the predominant, if not 
exclusive, biblical usage requires it rather than Jehovah 
in such expressions as are there employed. And that in 
the etymologies of the names, e.g., in vs. 6, 8, 18, 20, 23, 
the general term Elohim, as more poetic, would naturally 
be preferred, as it is in Proverbs. 

"Where there are two explanations of the same name 
he concedes that something has been inserted from an- 
other source. But there seems to be little cogency in 
this consideration. Issachar (sachar, hire) is associated 
with Leah's hiring by mandrakes and hiring by the gift 
of her maid ; Zebulun, with zabad, " endow," and zabal, 
" dwell;" Joseph, with asa.pli, "take away," and yasaph, 
" add." These are not to be regarded as discrepant ex- 
planations of these names, implying different views of 
their origin or of the occasion of their being given, but 
simply different allusions to the meaning or the sound of 
the names, which by no means exclude each other. Such 
allusions are multiplied in the case of Isaac. The name 
means " laughter ; " and we are told how Abraham laughed 
and Sarah laughed incredulously when his birth was pre- 



346 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

dieted, and how God made her laugh for joy, and all her 
friends langh with her when he was actually born. There 
is no inconsistency in these statements, and no need of 
parcelling them among different writers. It is the same 
writer playfully dwelling upon different aspects of a 
theme which interests him. 

Dillmann thus apportions the record of the birth of 
Jacob's children : J, xxix. 31-35 ; E, xxx. l-3a (including 
bear upon my knees, as 1. 23 E); J, 3b (that I may be build- 
ed by her), as xvi. 2 ; J, or rather P, 4a ; J, 4b, 5 ; E, 6 ; 
J, 7 ; E, 8 ; J, 9a ; P, 9b ; J, 10-16 ; E, 17-20a ; J, 20b ; 
J or E, 21 ; x P, 22a; E, 22b; J, 22c; E, 23; J, 24. 
And this in a paragraph which bears the most abundant 
and positive evidences of unity from first to last in con- 
tinuity of theme, consistent method of treatment, cross- 
references, style, and language. 

"Leah was hated" (xxix. 31), see vs. 18, 20, 25, 30. 
"Opened her womb" (xxix. 31; xxx. 22), opposed to 
" shut " (xx. 18 ; xvi. 2) ; cf. xxx. 2. " Eachel was bar- 

1 The birth of a daughter is never mentioned unless she is to appear 
in the subsequent history (cf. xxii. 23). Dinah (xxix. 21) is prepara- 
tory to ch. xxxiv. ; and as no part of that chapter is given to E, xxx. 
21 is necessarily referred to either J or R. So the numerous allusions 
in xxix. 5, 10, 12, 13, to ch. xxiv. J, make it necessary to refer the para- 
graph containing those verses to J. The frequent references, both for- 
ward and backward, in Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch, bind the 
whole together in inseparable unity, and oppose a formidable obstacle 
to any divisive scheme. They put an end to the fragment hypothe- 
sis, and they compel the advocates of the document hypothesis to use 
great adroitness in so adjusting their lines of partition that it may ap- 
pear as though each document only presupposed or alluded to what is 
contained in itself. By using the utmost ingenuity and making a per- 
fectly arbitrary partition, severing what properly belongs together and 
splintering the text ad infinitum, if need be, they manage to cover a 
considerable number of these cross-references. But in spite of every 
effort to prevent it, the matter referred to is often in the wrong docu- 
ment, and the hypothesis can only be saved by assuming that it was 
originally in the other document likewise, but R has omitted it. 



JACOB IN HABAN (CHS. XXIX., XXX.) 347 

ren " (xxix. 31) ; see xxx. 1, 2, 22, 23. " Conceived and 
bare a son," " called his name," "and said " (xxix. 32), the 
same formulas with very slight variations recurring 
throughout. The language of the mothers refers in 
every case to the jealousy between the wives on account 
of Jacob's preference for Eachel and Leah's fertility. 
E?sri this time, now (xxix. 34 ; xxx. 20). " My husband 
will — because I have borne him — sons" (xxix. 34; xxx. 
20). "She left bearing " (xxix. 35; xxx. 9). "Again" 
(xxix. 33, 34, 35 ; xxx. 7, 19). Bilhah (xxx. 4), Zilpah (ver. 
9), cf. xxix. 24, 29. "Fifth" (xxx. 17), "sixth" (ver. 
19) son of Leah, referring to the preceding four (xxix. 
32-35). " God hearkened unto " (xxx. 17, 22) ; with the 
whole paragraph cf . xxxii. 22 ; xxxv. 23-26. In formal- 
ity of set phrases and in repetitions it is equal to any 
paragraph attributed to P. 

The critics may well infer that this portion of the story 
must have been very strikingly alike in J and in E, if E 
could thus pass back and forth from one to the other 
with no perceptible effect upon his narrative. The fact 
is that the paragraph is without seam, woven from the 
top throughout, and the critics have mistaken the figures 
deftly wrought into the material for patches slightly 
stitched together, and they try to rend it accordingly, 
but it will not tear. There is really nothing for them to 
do but to cast lots for it, which of the documents shall 
have it. If the paragraph had been purposely con- 
structed with this view, it could not more effectively 
demonstrate the futility of using the divine names and 
alleged doublets for parcelling the text of Genesis. 

The critical disposition of xxx. 25-43 J is based on the 
unfounded assumption of discrepancies between it and 
xxxi. 7 sqq., 41 E, both in respect to the chronology and 
the contract between Laban and Jacob. 

According to xxxi. 41, Jacob served Laban twenty years, 



348 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

fourteen for his two daughters and six for his cattle. 
But (xxx. 25 sqq.) the bargain about the cattle was made 
after the birth of Joseph, and (xxix. 20-28) Jacob was 
married to Leah and Rachel after he had already served 
seven years. Now it is alleged that he could not have 
had eleven children in the next seven years. The fallacy 
lies in failing to observe that there were four mothers. 
The narrative is linked throughout by Yav Consecutive ; 
but this does not prove that each several clause follows 
its predecessor in regular succession. 1 The children are 
grouped by their mothers, and thus the order of thought 
deviates from the order of time. Rachel's jealousy was 
aroused, and Bilhah introduced to Jacob (xxx. 1 sqq.) 
before Leah ceased bearing (xxix. 35). Leah's four sons 
were born in rapid succession, and as soon as she found 
that she was not at once to have another (xxx. 9) she 
substituted Zilpah, and before Zilpah had her second 
son she had herself conceived her fifth (ver. 17). Thus 
her sixth son could be born within the seven years, and 
Joseph's birth have taken place about the same time. 
Dinah (ver. 21) was born afterward, and is not to be in- 
cluded within the period in question. The alleged dis- 
crepancy, accordingly, is not proved. 

How is it with the bargaining between Laban and 
Jacob ? The latter charges that Laban had sought to 
defraud him by changing his wages ten times (xxxi. 7, 
41), but by God's interference this had been turned to 
Jacob's profit. On the other hand, in xxx. 31 sqq., La- 
ban assented to an arrangement which Jacob himself 
proposed, and which Jacob by a trick turned to his own 
advantage. The two statements are not in conflict, but 

1 Hengstenberg (Anthentie des Pentateuchs, ii., p. 351) appeals to Ex. 
ii. 1, where, though Moses was horn after Pharaoh's cruel edict (i. 22), 
the marriage of his parents and the birth of his brother Aaron (Ex. 
vii. 7) must have preceded it. 



JACOB IN HARAN (CHS. XXIX., XXX.) 349 

supplemental to each other. Chapter xxx. describes the 
original arrangement and Jacob's device. Chapter xxxi. 
tells how Laban modified it from time to time with a 
view to his own interest, but his selfish plans were di- 
vinely thwarted. 

The comparison of chs. xxx. and xxxi. accordingly sup- 
plies no basis for the assumption of discrepant accounts 
from different writers. But Wellhausen fancies a dis- 
crepancy in ch. xxx. itself, alleging that vs. 32-34 are in- 
consistent with their context. He understands these 
verses to mean that the spotted and brown cattle at that 
time in the flocks were to constitute Jacob's hire ; 
whereas (vs. 35, 36) they were separated from the flocks 
and given not to Jacob but to Laban's sons. The diffi- 
culty is altogether imaginary, and is simply due to a 
misinterpretation of the brief and elliptical statement in 
ver. 32. The real meaning is, as is plain from Jacob's 
opening words in ver. 31, and as it is correctly under- 
stood by Dillmann, that the speckled and brown cattle 
to be born thereafter were to be Jacob's ; and as a pre- 
liminary measure those of this description that were 
then in the flocks were set apart as Laban's. 

The doublets alleged are quite trivial, and appear at 
once upon examination to be unreal. Ver. 26a does not 
repeat 25b, but supplements it ; Jacob first asks in gen- 
eral terms to be dismissed that he may return to his home, 
and then adds, as included in his request, " Give me my 
wives and my children and let me go." Ver. 26b is re- 
peated in ver. 29, but it is for the sake of adding ver. 30, 
in which Jacob enlarges upon what he had already said, 
in order that he may impress upon Laban the obligation 
under which he had already laid him. In ver. 31a La- 
ban repeats the offer made in ver. 28, which Jacob had 
declined to answer in the first instance, preferring to 
state the service which he had rendered, and thus give 



350 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

Laban an idea of what he was entitled to, before he 
made any demand. Dillmann himself sets aside Well- 
hausen's suggestion that 39a is a doublet of 38b. The 
central clause of ver. 40 is magisterially declared to be a 
later insertion, but as no reason is given, and none is 
apparent, no answer is necessary. These can scarcely 
be regarded as establishing the existence of a composite 
text derived from distinct sources. 

THE DIVINE NAMES 

Two things are here observable in relation to the di- 
vine names, and have often been remarked : that in this 
portion of Genesis, and on to the end of the book, they 
occur less frequently than before ; and that Elohim 
largely predominates over Jehovah. Several considera- 
tions should be noted as bearing upon the explanation 
of these facts : 

1. Jacob was on a lower plane, religiously, than Abra- 
ham and Isaac. 

2. His life was henceforth largely spent away from the 
holy land and among those not of the chosen race. 

3. Since the relation of Jehovah to the patriarchs had 
been sufficiently established by the previous use of that 
name, it seemed less important to continue to repeat it, 
and of more consequence to guard against the notion that 
the God of the patriarchs was a mere tribal deity by re- 
curring to the general term Elohim, suggestive of his re- 
lation to the world at large. 

4. The fuller revelation of God as Jehovah in the 
Mosaic age threw that made to the patriarchs compara- 
tively into the shade ; so that while in the beginning, in 
contrast with the times before Abraham, the patriarchal 
age was marked by new manifestations of Jehovah, those 
granted toward its close seemed of inferior grade in com- 
parison with the more resplendent revelations that were 



JACOB IN HARAN (chs. XXIX., XXX.) 351 

to come after, and so more fitly associated with the gen- 
eral term Elohim than the personal name Jehovah. 

The solution offered by the critics is that the materials 
are henceforth largely drawn from the document E. But 
the hypothesis of different documents will not meet the 
case. It has already been seen what confusion it intro- 
duces in the chapters now before us. It encounters like 
perplexities in the chapters that follow. If the alterna- 
tion of Elohim and Jehovah is not in every instance reg- 
ulated in as marked and conspicuous a manner as hereto- 
fore by the meanings of the names, there is, nevertheless, 
nothing counter to the general usage of the rest of Script- 
ure in their employment, or that suggests the idea that 
it was mechanically determined by the particular docu- 
ment from which any given extract chanced to be drawn. 
In many cases either name would be appropriate, and it 
is at the option of the writer to use one or the other. 
And it is no valid ground of objection to the unity of 
Genesis if a like freedom prevails there as in other 
books of the Bible, where it might often be difficult to 
assign a definite reason for the occurrence of Elohim 
rather than Jehovah, or vice versa. 

The birth of Jacob's children is capable of being 
viewed in a twofold light, as the gracious gift of Jeho- 
vah, the God of the chosen race, who watched over and 
directed its enlargement, or as blessings bestowed in the 
ordinary providence of God. Leah's first children, 
granted to her notwithstanding the disfavor of her hus- 
band, are viewed under the former aspect (xxix. 31-35). 
Those that f ollow, in ch. xxx., are regarded under the lat- 
ter aspect, viz., the children of the handmaids, sprung 
from the jealous strife of Jacob's wives ; those of Leah 1 

i Note Leah's lingering heathenism in her allusions to "fortune" 
(Gad) and "good luck" (Ashera) (vs. 11-13) ; and Rachel's theft of 
her father's images (xxxi. 30, 34). 



352 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

after she had bargained for her husband's presence ; and 
Eachel's son, born after her long envy and impatience. 
Upon his birth she gives utterance to her hope that her 
husband's God, Jehovah, would add to her yet another. 
Thus both Elohim and Jehovah are associated with chil- 
dren of both Leah and Rachel ; and Jehovah begins and 
ends the series, encircling the whole and enclosing the 
providential favors granted between these limits. 

If any object that this appears to be an artificial ar- 
rangement it can at least be said that the critics have 
nothing better to propose. The narrative of these suc- 
cessive births is plainly one and indivisible, and cannot 
be rent asunder and converted into such a piece of patch- 
work as they are obliged to make of it. The style and 
method are the same, the language and phrases are the 
same, the narrative is continuous, each part being bound 
to and implying the others. So that even Yater, 1 with 
all his predilection for the fragment hypothesis, en- 
ters his protest against subdivision here, and against the 
assumption on which it rests, that the same writer could 
not use both Elohim and Jehovah ; an assumption that 
is falsified by nearly every book in the Bible. Delitzsch 
holds that "the interchange of divine names is based 
upon the interchange of sources from which extracts are 
taken," and then annuls the ground upon which this 
opinion rests by the admission that "the author of Gen- 
esis has intentionally woven both divine names into the 
origin of Israel, and it is probably also not accidental 
that the name Jehovah is impressed on the first four 
births, and the name Elohim on the remaining seven. 
On the whole, we are to get the impression that in laying 
the foundation of Israel Jehovah's fidelity to his prom- 
ises and Elohim's miracle-working power wrought in 
combination." 

1 Pentateuch, ii., p. 724. 



JACOB IN HAEAN (CHS. XXIX., XXX.) 353 

It remains to be added that in xxx. 2, where Jacob 
says, " Am I in God's stead," Elohim is evidently in 
place from the suggested contrast of God and man. So 
ver. 8, where Eachel says, " with wrestlings of God have 
I wrestled," whether the genitive is that of the object, 
i.e., wrestlings after God, after a token of the divine 
favor in giving me a child, or that of the subject, i.e., di- 
vine or superhuman wrestlings. In either case Elohim 
is the proper word. But in vs. 27, 30, Jehovah is appro- 
priate because Laban, though not of the chosen race, 
recognizes that it was Jacob's God who had blessed him 
for Jacob's sake. 

MAEKS OF J 

1. b "lEtf ivhich belong to (xxix. 9) ; besides repeated in 
J, but also in E (xxxi. 21 ; xxxii. 24 (E. Y. ver. 23) ; xli. 
43 ; xlv. 10, 11) ; xl. 5b, and xlvi. 1 are cut out of E con- 
texts and assigned to J. 

2. n&njpb fni run to meet (ver. 13). This particular 
expression occurs three times besides in the Hexateuch, 
and is each time referred to J, viz., xviii. 2 ; xxiv. 17 ; 
xxxiii. 4 ; but both the words occur in E, and there is no 
reason why any Hebrew writer might not have used them 
if he had occasion to do so. See chs. xviii., xix., Marks 
of J, No. 16. 

3. ^ntpn^i ijflS? my bone and my flesh (ver. 14). A like 
expression occurs in ii. 23 J, but nowhere else in the 
Hexateuch. It is used, however, by other writers also 
(Judg. ix. 2 ; 2 Sam. v. 1 ; xix. 13, 14, E. V., vs. 12, 13). 

4. HHSTD bondmaid (xxix. 24, 29 ; xxx. 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 
18, 43). This word is said to be characteristic of P and 
J, as opposed to E, who uses ra« maid, as xxx. 3. It oc- 
curs, however, several times in these chapters in what 
the critics consider wrong connections, and the corrective 
is unhesitatingly applied by exscinding the offending 

23 



354 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

clause. Thus in xxix. 24, 29, it is found in an E connec- 
tion, and these isolated verses are cut out and given to P, 
where they are quite unmeaning, and there is nothing 
with which to connect them. They evidently belong 
where they stand as preparatory for xxx. 4, 9. It is a 
mere evasion to sunder these verses from their proper 
context because of the manifest reference to them and 
their repetition in identical terms in xlvi. 18, 25 P, which 
is at variance with the critics' hypothesis. Y^ellhausen 
erases the word, " Rachel's handmaid " from xxxi. 7, as 
an insertion by R, because he gives the verse to E ; Dill- 
mann suffers the words to stand because he assigns the 
verse to J. But both these critics agree that R must 
have substituted nnsti? for irn# in xxxi. 18, which they 
refer to E. The occurrence of rn2£ maid, in xxx. 3, is not 
indicative of a particular document E ; Rachel, in offer- 
ing her bondmaid nnstt? to Jacob as a concubine, uses 
the less servile term. See ch. xx., Marks of E, No. 1 ; 
xxi. 1-21, Marks of E, No. 11. 

5. "jn 'tfTOEE &W"D8 if now I have found favor (xxx. 27). 
See ch. xii. 16-20, Marks of J, No. 3 ; ch. vi. 1-8, No. 10. 

6. bbte for the sake of (ver. 27). See ch. xii. 10-20, 
Marks" of J, No. 6. 

7. fns break forth, increase (vs. 30, 43). See ch. 
xxviii. 10-22, Marks of J, No. 3. 

MAKES OF E 

1. irnbtott wages (xxix. 15). This is reckoned an E 
word, though in the Hexateuch it only occurs besides in 
xxxi. 7, 41 E. It is here used interchangeably with its 
equivalent from the same root, Sjte, which is found alike 
in E (xxx. 18 ; xxxi. 8 bis ; Ex. n. 9 ; xxii. 14 ; E. Y., 15) ; 
in J (xxx. 28, 32, 33) ; in JE (xv. 1) ; in P (Num. xviii. 
31) ; and in D (Deut. xv. 18 ; xxiv. 15). 



JACOB IN HARAN (CHS. XXIX.. XXX.) 355 

2. nViU, HstOp in respect to age, elder, younger (xxix. 16, 
18). These words are here attributed to E in contrast 
with JTT03, rrplPS, which are supposed to belong to J. 
But as these latter words occur (ver. 26) in an E context, 
it is necessary to cut this verse out of its connection and 
give it to J for this reason alone. But these alleged E 
words are nowhere else regarded as such. bi"i5 elder, is 
assigned to J (x. 21 ; xxvii. 15 ; xliv. 12) ; to JE (xxvii. 
1, 42). "jbjj younger, occurs in J (ix. 24 ; xxvii. 15 ; xliv. 
12, 20) ; in JE (xxvii. 42). If, now, upon the critics' own 
partition of the text, J uses both pairs of words, how 
can either pair be regarded as an indication of a different 
document? See ch. xix. 29-38, Marks of J, No. 1, 2. 

3. HbTna ^V*) ^KPI t^ fair of form and fair to look 
upon (xxix. 17). The entire expression occurs but once 
besides, viz., xxxix. 6, which is referred to J ; " fair to 
look upon " occurs in J (xii. 11) ; in E (xli. 2, 4, 18) ; "fair 
of form " occurs but once more in the Hexateuch, viz., 
Deut. xxi. 11 D. See ch. xxiv., Marks of J, No. 13. 

It will be observed that not one of these so-called E 
words or phrases is peculiar to that document ; and such 
as they are, they are all taken from xxix. 15-18. The 
only other words adduced from the entire two chapters 
as belonging to E, and suggestive of E paragraphs, are 
Elohim, 1TQX maid (xxx. 3 ; see above, Marks of J, No. 4), 
and two expressions in xxix. 1, which occur nowhere else 
in the Hexateuch, either in J or E, viz., " lifted up his 
feet" (E. V., went on his journey), " land of the children of 
the east" It is said that this region is called Paddan- 
aram by P, and Aram-naharaim (xxiv. 10) by J, conse- 
quently this third designation must be that of E. But 
if J can call the same place Haran (xxix. 4) and the city 
of Nahor (xxiv. 10), why may he not use more than one 
designation for the region in which it stood ? See under 
ch. xxiv., p. 298. 



356 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

Dillmann points out three E words, as he considers 
them, in the midst of a paragraph assigned to J, viz., 
DTCSTl gutters (xxx. 38, 41), as Ex. ii. 16 E; W)F\ he-goat 
(xxx. 35), as xxxii. 15 (E. V., 14) E ; ^py ring-streaked 
(xxx. 35, 39, 40), as xxxi. 8, 10, 12 E. The' adoption of E 
words and phrases by J here and frequently elsewhere, 
together with the close correspondence between J and E 
in matter and form, which must be assumed in this chap- 
ter, and in many other passages of like character, makes 
it necessary, so Dillmann infers, to suppose that J was 
in possession of the document E, and made use of it in 
preparing his own work. Knobel and Kayser go far- 
ther, and find it unnecessary to assume the existence of 
a redactor to combine the separate documents of J and 
E, preferring to regard the combined work JE as the 
production of J who had E (or a similar source differently 
named by Knobel) before him, and incorporated such por- 
tions of it as he saw fit. AVellhausen objects that J must 
have been entirely independent of E ; for, if he drew from 
E, he would not have varied from it and contradicted it 
in so many instances. There is a measure of truth in the 
position taken by each of these critics. If such docu- 
ments as are attributed to J and E ever existed, there 
are abundant indications that J must have been ac- 
quainted with E. And if so, Wellhausen is right in 
holding that he could not have been guilty of introduc- 
ing such glaring discrepancies into his own work as the 
critics profess to find there. "Whether the combination 
was effected by J or by a redactor, neither the one nor 
the other could have been so senseless as to insert palpa- 
ble contradictions in what he put forth as credible his- 
tory. And in fact these alleged discrepancies and con- 
tradictions prove upon examination not to be such, but 
to be capable of ready reconciliation. And as these sup- 
ply the principal argument for the separate existence of 



RETURN FROM HARAN (CHS. XXXI.-XXXII. 3) 357 

J and E, the main prop of this portion of the hypothesis 
collapses with their disappearance ; and it becomes easy 
to see how J can use E words, and show familiarity with 
the contents of E sections, if J and E are identical. 

Jacob's return from haran (chs. xxxi.-xxxii. 3; e. v., 

VER. 2) 

Chapter xxxi. 1-43 is by the critics mainly assigned 
to E on account of the repeated occurrence of Elohim, 
its alleged contrariety to ch. xxx., and the revelations in 
dreams to Jacob (vs. 11 sqq.) and Laban (ver. 24) ; also 
the reference in ver. 13 to xxviii. 20 sqq., which we have 
no disposition to dispute. While this passage is as- 
signed by the critics to E, it has already been shown to 
be intimately connected with xxx. 31 sqq., with which it 
is entirely consistent, and from which the attempt is 
vainly made to sunder it. 

It is claimed that while this paragraph is for the most 
part from E, vs. 1, 3, 21b, 25, 27 are insertions from J. 
But ver. 2 is not an idle repetition of ver. 1 ; it is addi- 
tional to it. Laban as well as his sons had become dis- 
affected toward Jacob. In speaking to his wives (ver. 5) 
he only mentions their father's disfavor, because this was 
of supreme consequence to himself, and made it plainly 
undesirable for him to remain longer in his service. 
Both vs. 1 and 2 prepare the way for Jehovah's direction 
to Jacob to return to the land of his fathers (ver. 3), 
which stands in no special relation to ver. 1, as the 
scheme of the critics implies. Nor does ver. 3 interrupt 
the connection. It supplies the occasion of Jacob's sum- 
moning Rachel and Leah (ver. 4) ; and ver. 5 explicitly 
refers to and repeats the language of both ver. 2 and ver. 
3. It is true that ver. 3 has " Jehovah," which is unwel- 
come to the critics here, but it cannot be helped. It is 



358 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

precisely equivalent to " the God of my father " (ver. 5). 
The verse is appropriate and required where it stands, 
and Jacob adopts its very words (ver. 13) in reciting at 
length to his wives what is briefly and summarily stated 
in this verse. 

The middle clause of ver. 21 is no superfluous repeti- 
tion. The account of Jacob's leaving (vs. 17, 18) is in- 
terrupted by a necessary digression (vs. 19, 20) explain- 
ing that it was without Laban's knowledge. Verse 21a 
resumes the notice of this departure ; 21b repeats the 
opening words of ver. 17 to add that he crossed the 
Euphrates ; 21c states the direction of his flight. All 
proceeds regularly and naturally. On the ground that 
it would have been impossible to reach Gilead from Ha- 
ran in seven days J (ver. 23), Dillmann infers that La- 
ban's residence must, in E's account, have been much 
nearer to Gilead than Haran, and that he must either 
have meant some other river than the Euphrates in ver. 
21, or else " he rose up and passed over the river " must 
have been taken from J. To which Delitzsch replies that 
Laban's home was in Haran, according to both J and E ; 
so that in any event this affords no argument for critical 
partition. As to the accuracy of the statement the histo- 
rian is responsible. It should not, however, be forgotten 
that there is some indefiniteness in the localities. Laban 
may have been with his sheep at some distance from 
Haran (ver. 19) ; and the limits of Gilead are not clearly 
defined. 

That Laban's pursuit was successful is summarily 
stated (ver. 23b). Then further details are given : La- 
ban's dream before he came up with Jacob (ver. 24) ; La- 
ban's overtaking Jacob, and the respective location of the 
two parties (ver. 25). There is no doublet here any more 

1 In his first edition Dillmann did not seem to think this impossible, 
but simply that it would require " very vigorous " marching. 



RETURN FROM HAEAN (CHS. XXXI. -XXXII. 3) 359 

than there is in the various instances of a like nature 
which have been reviewed before. Nor is ver. 27 a doub- 
let of ver. 26. If the repetition of a thought so prom- 
inent in Laban's mind offends the critics, how is it that 
they can refer ver. 27, with its triple repetition, to a sin- 
gle writer ? 

According to WeHhausen vs. 10, 12 is an interpola- 
tion of uncertain origin. Dillmann, who deals largely 
in transpositions to accomplish critical ends or to relieve 
fancied difficulties, thinks that R took them from a nar- 
rative of E, which he had omitted in its proper place, 
and inserted them here rather inappropriately in this 
address of Jacob to his wives. What motive he could 
have had for such a piece of stupidity we are not in- 
formed. The genuineness of the verses is saved, but it 
is at the expense of E's good sense. It may be, how- 
ever, that the writer thought these verses appropriate, 
whether the critics do or not. 

There is no discrepancy between the revelation as re- 
corded in ver. 3 and as subsequently related by Jacob 
(vs. 11-13). When a writer has occasion to speak of 
the same matter in different connections three courses 
are open to him. He may narrate it both times in all its 
details, he may narrate it fully in the first instance and 
refer to it more briefly afterward, or he may content 
himself with a brief statement at first and reserve the de- 
tails until he recurs to it again. In the directions to 
build the tabernacle minute specifications are given 
(Ex. xxv. 10-ch. xxx.) ; in its actual construction all the 
details are stated afresh (xxxvi. 8-ch. xxxix.), the sa- 
credness of the edifice making it essential to note the ex- 
actness with which the divine directions were carried into 
effect in every particular. Detailed directions are given 
for building the ark (Gen. vi. 14 sqq.), but in recording- 
its construction the general statement is deemed sufli- 



360 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

cient that Noah did as he was commanded (ver. 22). 
Pharaoh's dreams, because of their importance in the 
history, are twice narrated in full and almost identical 
language (Gen. xli. 1-7, 17-24). So the dream of Laban 
(xxxi. 24, 29), the story of Abraham's servant (xxiv. 3 
sqq., 37 sqq.), the fiats of creation (Gen. ch. i.). But the 
dreams of Joseph (xxxvii. 5 sqq.) and of Pharaoh's ser- 
vants (xl. 5, 9 sqq.) are simply mentioned as facts and 
the details reserved until they come to be narrated by 
the dreamers. 

In the instance at present before us instead of twice 
recording the divine communication made to Jacob in all 
its details, the writer simply states at first that Jehovah 
directed Jacob to return to the land of his fathers (xxxi. 
3), leaving a more minute account of the whole matter 
to be introduced subsequently in a recital by Jacob. It 
is entirely appropriate in the connection that the revela- 
tion here made to Jacob should concern both his rela- 
tion to Laban and his return to Canaan. The only 
seeming difficulty is created by the needless assumption 
that things are combined in it which belong to different 
periods of time ; that what is said respecting the cattle 
must belong to the early period of Laban's dealings with 
Jacob, 1 while it is united in the same dream with the 
command to return to Canaan. The dream is retrospec- 
tive and was intended to teach Jacob that while he had 
been relying upon his own arts to increase his compensa- 
tion, the true cause of his prosperity was to be found in 
the favor of God. And this shows why the arts of 
Jacob are detailed in ch. xxx. without allusion to the di- 

1 l&kFf QrP T\$ (ver. 10) denotes a season of the year, the time of 
copulation of flocks, and should be rendered " the time when flocks 
conceive," as a usual thing, rather than " conceived," as though the 
reference were to a definite event in the past. It is as applicable, 
therefore, to the last year of Jacob's abode with Laban as to any that 
had preceded. 



RETURN FROM HA RAN (CHS. XXXI.-XXXII. 8) 361 

vine agency, the latter being alone insisted on in ch. xxxi. 
It is not that these have proceeded from distinct writers 
who had different conceptions of the transaction. It is 
simply that the writer designed to lead his readers to the 
true result by the same route through which Jacob him- 
self passed, without any premature explanation. 1 Well- 
hausen alleges that the words of the divine angel must 
have begun with the words "I am the God," etc. (ver. 
13) ; but this is disposed of by a reference to Ex. iii. 4- 
6. Dillmann remarks that E uses Tia grisled (xxxi. 10, 
12;, where J has fcttbtt speckled (xxx. 32, 33), which sim- 
ply shows, not that there are two writers, in which case 
the identical expressions in these verses could be less 
easily accounted for, but that the writer was not aiming 
at a nice precision in regard to terms so closely akin. 
Dillmann also calls attention to the fact that in J (xxx. 
35) "jpy ring -streaked, and Ipp speckled, are used inter- 
changeably, while in E (xxxi. 8-10, 12) they are distin- 
guished ; but that this is no ground for critical partition 
is plain, since they are similarly distinguished in J (xxx. 
39). 

Verse 18 (except the first clause) is assigned to P. It 

1 Kuenen, Hexateuch, p. 235, remarks upon these passages : " Gen. 
xxx. 28-43 and xxxi. 4-13 explain Jacob's great wealth by his own 
canning and by the care of Elohim respectively. The former is in per- 
fect harmony with the uniform representation of Jacob's character. 
Can the latter be anything but an ethico religious improvement upon 
it ? For observe that the mutual agreement of the two passages forbids 
us to regard them as independent, so that one must in any case be a 
transformation of the other." Kuenen's conclusion that the E passage 
is a later improvement upon that of J is in direct conflict with Dill- 
mann' s contention that E is the earlier document, from which J re- 
peatedly borrows. The intimate mutual relation of the passages re- 
spectively assigned to J and E is confessed by both these critics. 
Kuenen has here mistaken a later stage in Jacob's own understanding 
of the secret of his success for a second and modified form of the trans- 
action itself. 



362 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

has the usual phrases of patriarchal removals (cf . xii. 5 ; 
xiii. 6 ; xxxvi. 6, 7 ; xlvi. 6). The resemblance between 
these verses is certainly such as to suggest their common 
origin ; and the critics refer them uniformly to P, but 
upon what ground it is difficult to see. It is at variance 
with the connection in every individual case; xii. 5, 
xiii. 6 are torn from a J context ; xxxi. 18, xlvi. 6 from an 
E context, 1 and the context of xxxvi. 6, 7, is disputed. 
The minute specification of particulars, alleged to be 
characteristic of P, is no greater than in xxxii. 6, 23 (E. 
Y. vs. 5, 22) J, xxxiv. 28, 29 R, taken perhaps from E, xlv. 
10 E or J. Of the words and phrases in these verses said 
to be indicative of P, not one is peculiar to him. " Togo 
to his father " (ver. 18) links it with xxxv. 27 P indeed, 
but equally with xxviii. 31 E. No good reason can be 
given why these verses should not be reckoned an integral 
part of the context in which they are found. This is 
particularly so in this instance, in which the presence of 
E words 2 at the beginning makes it necessary to divide 
the sentence, leaving only an incomplete fragment for P, 
in which nevertheless one of these very words (TOJptt) 
recurs, as it does also in a like connection, xxxvi. 6. 

HIATUS IN THE DOCUMENT P 

But accepting the partition on the sole dictum of the 
critics, the result is an enormous gap in P. He makes 

1 The supplement hypothesis, which identified E and P, had a basis 
here for the reference of these verses to the " Grundschrift," which 
the present critical hypothesis has not. 

2 HDptt cattle, is claimed for J or JE ; ^HJ carried away, which re- 
curs in E, ver. 26, with explicit reference to this passage, and is found 
besides in the Hexateuch (except twice in Deut.), Ex. iii. 1. ; xiv. 25 E ; 
Ex. x. 13 J. If to avoid mutilating the sentence the whole verse is given 
to P, the argument from the JE use of these words elsewhere is con- 
fessed to be worthless. 



RETURN FROM HARAN (CHS. XXXI. -XXXII. 3) 363 

no mention of Jacob's arrival in Paddan-arain, or of his 
residence there, or anything that occurred during his stay 
in that region, not even of his marriage, the one sole pur- 
pose for which he went, as the critics understand P, or 
of the birth of his children, or of his accumulation of 
property. There are only the disconnected and conse- 
quently unmeaning statements (xxix. 24, 29) that Laban 
gave maids to his two daughters, and (xxx. 22) that God 
remembered Eachel. But what either the daughters or 
their maids had to do with the life of Jacob does not 
appear. And now Jacob is returning with cattle and 
property to which there has been no previous allusion, 
and no suggestion of how they were obtained, but no 
hint that he had a family. 1 J and E supply what is lack- 
ing, though a marriage was no part of the purpose with 
which, according to them, Jacob left his home. And 
further, P at a later time (xxxv. 22b-26) recites the names 
of Jacob's children in the order of their birth, and refers 
them to their different mothers in exact accordance with 
the detailed account in JE, which is thus presupposed. 
"What the critics sunder from P is thus an essential part 
of his narrative. And it is necessary for them to resort 
again to the assumption that P did write just such an 
account as we find in J and E, but E has not preserved 
it. Nevertheless E, who has here dropped P's entire 
story at a most important epoch, that which laid the 
foundation for the tribal division of Israel, and thus re- 
duced his narrative to incoherent fragments, elsewhere 
introduces clauses and sentences which in the judgment 
of the critics are quite superfluous repetitions of what 

1 Noldeke endeavored to account for this vast chasm in P by the 
wholly gratuitous assumption that the narrative of P was inconsistent 
with that of J and E, and R omitted it for that reason. The supple- 
ment hypothesis, which made E and P one document, here again es- 
caped this incongruity. 



364 THE GENEKATIOJSTS OE ISAAC 

had been more fully stated before, for the mere sake of 
preserving everything contained in his sources. 1 

But the strangest feature of P's account, as conceived 
by the critics, is thus clearly and succinctly stated by 
Dr. Harper : " The absence of the theological element 
is quite conspicuous : (1) The daily life of the patriarchs 
(with the exception of a few special and formal the- 
ophanies) is barren of all religious worship. (2) This is 
especially noticeable in the case of Jacob ; he leaves 
home to seek for the wife who is to be the mother of 
Israel; he sojourns many years in the land from which 
Abram was by special command sent away ; he marries 
according to the instruction of his parents, and begets 
the children who are to become the tribes of Israel — still 
no sacrifice or offering is made to God for his providen- 
tial care, not even a prayer is addressed to the Deity. 
(3) Nor does God, on his part, descend to take part or 
interest in human affairs ; He gives no encouragement to 
Jacob as he leaves home, nor does he send any word to 
him to return." 2 

This comes near enough to the " unthinkable " to be a 
refutation of that critical analysis which is responsible 
for such a result. P is the priestly narrator, to whom 
the ordinances of worship are supremely sacred, and they 
absorb his whole interest ; whose history of the patri- 
archs is only preliminary and subsidiary to the law regu- 
lating the services of the sanctuary. The patriarchs are 
to him the heroes and the models of Israel, whom, we 
are told, he is so intent upon glorifying that he reports 
none of their weaknesses, no strifes, no act of disingenu- 
ousness, no strange gods in their households, nothing 

1 Kg., vii. 13-15, 17, 22, 23 ; viii. 2b. 3a ; xiii. 6 ; xix. 29, not to speak 
of the innumerable doublets which the critics fancy that they have dis- 
covered. 

2 Hebraica, v. 4, p. 276. 



RETURN FROM HARAN (CHS. XXXI.-XXXII. 3) 365 

low or degrading. He singles out for prominent mention 
the sabbath (ii. 2, 3) ; the prohibition of eating blood (ix. 
4) ; the ordinance of circumcision (xvii. 10 sqq.). God 
appears to Abraham and establishes his covenant with 
him and with his seed, with the express condition of his 
walking before him and being perfect, i.e., whole-hearted 
in his service (xvii. 1 sqq.). And jet P's account of the 
patriarchs, as the critics furnish it to us, is almost abso- 
lutely denuded of any religious character. Is P really so 
absurd and self-contradictory, or have the critics made a 
mistake in their partition ? 

THE COVENANT OF LABAN AND JACOB 

The account of the covenant between Laban and Jacob 
(vs. 44-54) is, in the opinion of the critics, a mass of 
doublets and glosses. There are two monuments, a pil- 
lar (ver. 45) and a heap of stones (ver. 46) ; two covenant 
meals (vs. 46b, 54) ; two names with their respective ety- 
mologies (vs. 48, 49) ; two (or rather three) appeals to 
God to watch, witness, and judge between them (vs. 49, 
50, 53) ; and the substance of the contract is stated 
twice, and in different terms (vs. 50, 52). The symmetry 
of this statement is somewhat spoiled by the triplicity of 
one of the items. But the passage would seem to afford 
ample scope for critical acumen. There has, however, 
been great divergence in the results that have been 
reached, and no partition that has been devised has 
proved generally satisfactory. 1 Dillmann, who in the 

1 Astruc, followed by Sclirader, gives vs. 48-50 to the Jehovist, and 
the remainder to the Elohist. Eichhorn, and after him Tuch, limits 
the Jehovist to ver. 49. Ilgen gives the whole passage to the second 
Elohist, except vs. 48, 49, which he throws out of the text as a later 
gloss, and makes several transpositions in order to obtain what he con- 
siders a more suitable arrangement. 

Other critics divide as follows : Knobel (Commentary) : Ancient 



366 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

main here adopts the division of Wellhausen, assigns vs. 
46, 48-50 to J, who accordingly tells of the heap of 
stones in pledge that Jacob would treat his wives as he 
should, with some dislocations, to be sure, which Dill- 
mann corrects as usual by the necessary transpositions ; 
the covenant meal (ver. 46b), and the naming of the heap 
(ver. 48b) , ought in his opinion to come after the engage- 
ment (ver. 50). Of course R is charged with having re- 
moved these clauses from their proper place, and no 
very good reason is given for his having done so. E (vs. 
45, 47, 51-54) records the erection of a pillar as a boun- 
dary between the Hebrews on the one side and the Ara- 
maeans on the other. 

But Delitzsch mars this arrangement by calling atten- 
tion to Jehovah in ver. 49, and Elohim in ver. 50, show- 
ing that both J and E related Jacob's pledge in relation 
to his wives ; also to the triple combination of the heap 
and the pillar in vs. 51, 52, showing that J and E also 
united in fixing the boundary between Laban and Jacob. 
So that it appears after all that there were not two cove- 
nants, but two stipulations in the same covenant. Dill- 
mann is further constrained to confess that E speaks of a 

Source, vs. 45, 46, 48-50, 53b. J, vs. 47, 51, 52, 53a. (Appendix): 
First Source, vs. 44, 48-50, 53, 54. Second Source, vs. 45-47, 51, 52. 

Hupfeld : E, vs. 46b, 48a, 50. J, vs. 45, 46a. 47, 51-54, 48b, 49. 

Boehmer: E, vs. 44, 46, 47, 51, 52 (expunging the k ' pillar" twice), 
53b, 54a. J, vs. 45, 48 (And Laban said), 53a, 54b. R, vs. 48 (after 
the opening words), 49, 50. 

Kittel : E, vs. 45 (substitute " Laban " for " Jacob "), 46, 48a, 50, 53, 
54. J, vs. 51, 52 (expunge the " pillar" twice). R, vs. 48b, 49. 

Vatke : E, vs. 45, 47, 48a, 50, 54. J, vs. 46, 48b, 49, 51-53. 

Delitzsch : E, vs. 45, 47, 50, 53b, 54. J, vs. 46, 48, 49. JE, inex- 
tricably combined, vs. 51-53a. R, in ver. 49, the words, "And Miz- 
pah ; for." 

Kayser gives up the partition as impracticable, and says, " The sepa- 
ration of the two elements cannot be effected without tearing asunder 
the well-ordered connection." 



RETURN FROM HARAX (CHS. XXXI.-XXXII. 3) 367 

ba " heap " as well as a " pillar " in ver. 52, inasmuch as 
ver. 47b is on critical principles a doublet of ver. 48b, 
and E as well as J located this scene in Mt. Gilead, and 
was concerned to find an allusion to its name in the 
transaction. He clogs his admission with the assertion 
that E uses b3 in a different sense from J, meaning a 
mountain ridge and not a heap thrown up by hand. But 
after all the critical erasures made for the purpose this 
is still unproved. He has merely demonstrated his de- 
sire to create a variance which does not exist. And ver. 
47, which he assigns to E, is indissolubly linked to ver. 
48 J. 

We thus have good critical authority for saying that 
one and the same writer has spoken of both the monu- 
ments and of both the contracts, involving, of course, the 
double appeal to God to watch over their fulfilment. 
And from this there is no escape but by the critical 
knife, of which "Wellhausen makes free use here, as he 
never fails to do in an extremity. Verse 47 \ is thrown 
out of the text as a piece of " superfluous learning ; " but 
Dillmann replies that E calls Laban " the Aramaean " 
(vs. 20, 24), that he likewise speaks of the " heap," in 
ver. 52, and may have given an explanation of the name 
" Gilead ; " 2 and that the location of the place on the 

1 Tueh, on the contrary, finds in the Aramaean name in this verse an 
apt parallel to the Aramasan DTK t*j3 (for which Hosea xii. 13 (E. V. 
ver. 12) substitutes the Hebrew equivalent DISS ^1^P)j an( i be refers 
both alike to the same writer. 

2 It is alleged that a false explanation is given (ver. 48) of the name 
"Gilead," which means hard ox rough, not "heap of witness." It is 
not necessary, however, to suppose that it was the intention of the sa- 
cred writer to afiirm that G-ilead derived its name from the transaction 
here recorded. It bears that name in his narrative before this transac- 
tion took place (vs. 21, 23, 25). His meaning rather is that the name 
which it bad long borne was particularly appropriate by reason of this 
new association, which was naturally suggested by its sound to a He- 
brew ear (cf. xxvii. 36). 



368 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

boundary between the Aramaeans and the Hebrews may 
account for the twofold denomination. " Jehovah watch 
between me and thee when we are absent one from an- 
other " (ver. 49), is also expunged ; and " Mizpah," at 
the beginning of the verse, which is a clear voucher for 
the genuineness of the doomed clause, and a name which 
the historian was at pains to link with this transaction, 
as well as Gilead and Mahanaim (xxxii. 3, E. V., ver. 2), 
is by a stroke of the pen converted into Mazzebali, and 
then ejected from the text. "No man is with us ; see, 
Elohim is witness betwixt me and thee " (ver. 50), is in 
like manner declared to be an insertion by the redactor, 
on the ground that it conflicts with ver. 48, which makes 
the heap the witness ; but, as Delitzsch observes, there 
is obviously no collision between these statements. 
" This heap " with its adjuncts is twice erased (vs. 51, 
52a), and " this pillar " (ver. 52b), so as to read, " Be- 
hold, the pillar, which I have set, is a witness betwixt 
me and thee, that I will not pass over this wall (not a 
heap newly cast up, but a boundary of long standing) to 
thee, and that thou shalt not pass over this wall unto 
me." With the text thus cleared of obstructions, and 
altered to suit his purpose, he has a comparatively clear 
course. 

It is obvious to observe further that the two covenant 
meals are a fiction. Upon the erection of the heap pre- 
liminary mention is made (ver. 46) of the feast held be- 
side it, which is then recorded more fully, after other de- 
tails have been given, in ver. 54. We have already met 
repeated examples of the same kind. Delitzsch refers 
to such parallels as xxvii. 23 ; xxviii. 5. Dillmann him- 
self said (in his first edition) of the eating together in ver. 
46 : " This was the covenant meal, which is related ver. 
54. It is here only referred to proleptically (as ii. 8 and 
15 ; xxiv. 29, 30), and it is not necessary, therefore, to as- 



RETURN FROM HAEAN (CHS. XXXI. -XXXII. 3) 369 

sign the verse to a different author from vs. 53, 54, espe- 
cially as ' his brethren ' corresponds with vs. 32, 37." 

With the doublets thus disposed of, the analysis, 
which has no further basis, collapses entirely. The carp- 
ing objection that acts in which both participated are (vs. 
45, 46) attributed to Jacob, and (ver. 51), claimed by La- 
ban, gives no aid nor comfort to the critics, for the dis- 
crepancy, such as it is, is between contiguous verses of the 
same document. Wellhausen on this ground eliminates 
" Jacob " from the text of vs. 45, 46, and substitutes 
" Laban." Dillmann (in his first edition) quoted with ap- 
proval Knobel's statement, "It is self-evident that all 
this was done in common by both the leaders and their 
adherents ; " and again, on ver. 51, " Laban, as the one 
who proposed the covenant, rightly prescribes to Jacob the 
words to be sworn, and attributes to himself, as the orig- 
inator of it (ver. 44), the erection of the two witnesses." 
The suspicion cast upon " the God (or gods) of their 
father " (ver. 53), because the verb is interposed between 
it and " the God of Nahor," with which it is in apposition, 
is a pure question of textual criticism without further 
consequences. Here again Dillmann comes to the res- 
cue in his first edition. " The God of Abraham and the 
God of Nahor are then both designated by the apposi- 
tion 'the gods of their father,' as once worshipped by 
Terah, as if Terah's two sons had divided in the worship 
of the gods of Terah." 

THE DIVINE NAMES 

The divine names are used discriminatingly through- 
out. It was Jehovah (ver. 3) who bade Jacob return to 
the land of his fathers ; but in repeating this to his wives, 
who were but partially reclaimed from idolatry (xxx. 11 ; 
xxxi. 34 ; xxxv. 2, 4), he constantly uses Elohim (xxxi. 4- 
24 



370 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

13) (once, more definitely, the God of my father, ver. 5), 
as they also do in reply (ver. 16). In like manner it is 
Elohim, who speaks to Laban the Aramaean (ver. 24), 
and of whom Jacob speaks to Laban (ver. 42), though 
both of them recognize his identity with the God of Abra- 
ham and of Isaac (vs. 29, 42). When they covenant, ap- 
peal is made both to Jehovah and to Elohim (vs. 49, 50) 
as the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor (ver. 53). 
Jacob swears by the Fear of his father Isaac (ver. 53), 
the Being whom his father reverently worshipped, and 
whose gracious care he had himself experienced (ver. 42). 
In xxxii. 2, 3 (E. V., vs. 1, 2), " angels of Elohim," " the 
host of Elohim," are so called in distinction from mes- 
sengers of men and armies under human command ; it 
is a detachment divinely sent to welcome and escort 
him as he returns to the holy land. 

MARKS OF P (VER. 18) 

1. TED*) substance, and tbn to gather. See ch. xii. 5. 
Marks of P, No. 2. 

2. *pp getting ; besides in the Hexateuch, xxxiv. 23 ; 
Josh. xiv. 4 P ; Lev. xxii. 11, which, according to Well- 
hausen, is not in P ; and Gen. xxxvi. 6, which is cut out 
of a disputed context and given to P. 

3. Paddan-aram. See ch. xxv. 19-34, Marks of P, 
No. 4. 

4. ^22 V"^ land of Canaan. See ch. xii. 5, Marks of 
P, No."~4. 

5. The diffuseness ; but this is no greater than in vs. 
1, 3 J, and vs. 26, 27, 43 E. See ch. xvii., Marks of P, 
No. 5. 

MARKS OF E 

1. The back reference (ver. 13) to xxviii. 20 sqq., which 
is readily admitted. 



RETURN FROM HARAN (CHS. XXXI. -XXXII. 3) 371 

2. The revelations in dreams (vs. 10. 11, 24). See ch. 
xx., Marks of E, No. 4. 

3. Terajphim (vs. 19, 34, 35) ; nowhere else in the Hex- 
ateuch. 

4. Laban, the Aramaean. See ch. xxv. 19-34, Marks of 
P, No. 5. 

5. fTEX maid-servant (ver. 33) ; here used rather than 
nrjBUJ because they are spoken of not as bondmaids, but 
as wives of Jacob. See ch. xx., Marks of E, No. 1. 

6. nnb heart (ver. 26). See ch. xx., Marks of E, 
No. 2. " 

7. ro here (ver. 37). See ch. xxii. 1-19, Marks of E, 
No. 5. 

8. 2tt3 met (xxxii. 2, E. V., ver. 1). See ch. xxviii. 10- 
22, Marks of E, No. 3. 

9. pn^ ins the Fear of Isaac (xxxi. 42, 53); nowhere 
else ; and even ^ns besides, in the Hexateuch, only in 
Deut. and Ex. xv. 16, a passage supposed to have been 
borrowed from an older document, but not written by E. 

10. D^b times (xxxi. 7, 41) ; nowhere else. 

DittJbl? bran before time (xxxi. 2, 5), is reckoned an E 
phrase ; it occurs besides, Ex. v. 7, 8, 14 ; xxi. 29, 36 E ; 
but also Ex. iv. 10 J ; Josh. xx. 5 P. VtD? (ver. 28), a like 
form of the infinitive, occurs xlviii. 11 ; 1. 20 ; Ex. xviii. 
18 E ; but also Gen. xxvi. 28 ; Ex. xxxii. 6 J. ton 
search (ver. 35) ; only besides in the Hexateuch xliv. 12 J. 
*W2 in? burn in the eyes of, be displeasing to (ver. 35), 
besides in xlv. 5, where it is included between two J ex- 
pressions in the same clause, b 1JV>1 was wroth (ver. 
36), as iv. 5 J. The use of npb by E (vs. 45, 46) re- 
sembles what Dillmann affirms to be characteristic of 
P, xii. 5, and elsewhere. The various words and 
phrases alleged as marks of E, in this section as else- 
where, are for the most part either limited to a single 
passage, or are also found in J. Consequently they do 



372 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

not in fact supply any argument for a document E dis- 
tinct from J. 

It may further be noted that by the confession of the 
critics the same writer may use different terms to express 
the same thought. Thus ver. 2 speaks of the counte- 
nance of Laban being with Jacob, but ver. 5 of its be- 
ing toward him ; to " set up " (a pillar) is, in ver. 45, 
D*nn, but in xxviii. 18, 22, D^ip, and in xxxv. 20, 3^*1 ; 
and " collecting stones " is expressed differently in suc- 
cessive clauses of ver. 46. Yet all these forms of ex- 
pression are attributed alike to E. 

MEETING OF JACOB AND ESAU (CH. XXXII. 4 1 -XXXIII. 17) 

Hupfeld is commonly acute enough in detecting- 
grounds of division, but here for once he is completely 
at fault. This entire section seemed to him 2 to bear the 
most conclusive marks of unity in language, in the con- 
tinuity of the narrative, and in the close connection of 
the several parts, which mutually presuppose and are 
indispensable to each other. The interchange of divine 
names, Jehovah (xxxii. 10) and Elohim, gives him no 
trouble, since the latter occurs only where, according to 
general Hebrew usage, "Jehovah would not be appro- 
priate " (xxxii. 29, 31 ; xxxiii. 10), or " Elohim is prefer- 
able " (xxxiii. 5, 11). He accordingly attributed the 
whole of this section to J. Schrader, on the contrary, 
assigns it all to E, with the exception of vs. 10-13 J, and 
ver. 33, about which he is in doubt whether it belongs to 
J or is a later gloss. In his first edition Dillmann re- 

1 The last verse of ch. xxxi. in the English version is the first verse of 
ch. xxxii. in the Hebrew, and the consequent difference in numeration is 
continued through ch. xxxii. The numbers given in the text are those 
of the Hebrew, from which one must be deducted for the correspond- 
ing verse in the English Bible. 

s Quellen, p. 45. 



JACOB AXD ESAU (CHS. XXXII. 4-XXXIII. 17) 373 

f erred xxxii. 8-13 to J, and vs. 23-32 to E, while the 
remainder (xxxii. 4^7, 14-22 ; xxxiii. 1-16) contained 
so many indications of both E and J that he felt obliged 
to assume that J had taken the substance of it from E, 
and remodelled it after his own fashion. Such mingled 
texts, in which are confusedly blended what the critics 
regard as the characteristics of different documents, 
simply show how mistaken is every attempt to apportion 
among distinct writers expressions which are thus seen 
to flow freely from the same pen. 

TVellhausen admits that this whole section is closely 
connected throughout, and that it gives the impression 
of having been drawn from but a single source. " One 
will surely wonder," he adds, " at the idle acuteness 
which nevertheless succeeds here in sundering J and E." 
He has discovered a doublet, which had previously es- 
caped all eyes, and by its aid he undertakes to rend the 
passage in twain. Terse 14a is repeated ver. 22b. He 
infers that vs. 14b-22a only carries the narrative to the 
point already reached by vs. 4-13 ; and that conse- 
quently these two paragraphs are not consecutive as 
they appear to be, and as the nature of their contents 
would seem to imply, but are parallel accounts of the 
same transaction, drawn respectively from J and E. In 
his first edition Dillmann was so far from agreeing with 
this position as to maintain that the night spoken of in 
ver. 22 is not the same as that in ver. 14, but is the next 
ensuing. In subsequent editions, however, he follows, 
as he has unfortunately so often done, in the wake of 
TVellhausen, as though the latter had made a veritable 
discovery. But even though the night is the same, the 
paragraphs, which these verses respectively conclude, are 
plainly not identical in their contents, nor can they by 
possibility be variant accounts of the same transaction. 

Jacob had taken the precaution to notify Esau of his 



374 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

return, and was informed that Esau was on his way to 
meet him with four hundred men (vs. 4-7). He was in 
consequence greatly alarmed, not, as Tuch imagined, by 
the vague apprehension of what a horde of robber Bed- 
ouins might possibly do. This notion was advocated 
by him in the interest of the supplement hypothesis, 
which admitted but one Elohist, and supposed that he 
knew nothing of any strife between the brothers. But it 
is quite inadmissible in the present form of the divisive 
hypothesis, according to which E and J alike record 
Jacob's fraud in obtaining his father's blessing, and 
Esau's murderous wrath in consequence. Jacob well 
knew that he had an enraged brother to deal with, and 
he feared the worst. He shaped his measures accord- 
ingly. He first divides his flocks and herds, together 
with his retinue, into two separate companies, that if one 
should be attacked the other might escape (vs. 8, 9). 
He then makes his earnest appeal to Jehovah, the God 
of his fathers, who had bidden him return, acknowledg- 
ing his unworthiness of past mercies, pleading the 
promises divinely made to him, and praying for deliver- 
ance from this impending peril (vs. 10-13). Upon this 
he selects a valuable present of goats and sheep and 
camels and asses, and sends them forward in successive 
droves to placate Esau ! and announce his own coming 
(vs. 14-22). These are evidently distinct measures, 
wisely planned to avert the danger which he had so 
much reason to apprehend. 

The repeated mention of the night, then coming on, 
which was the most eventful in Jacob's life, upon which 

1 The assertion that there are two variant conceptions of the present 
to Esau, that in ver. 14 E it is simply a token of respect, while in ver. 
21b (which Dillmann cuts out of its connection and assigns to J) it is de- 
signed to appease Esau s anger, is at variance with the uniform tenor of 
the entire passage. 



JACOB AXD ESAU (CHS. XXXII. 4-XXXIII. 17) 375 

so much depended, and in which so much was done, is 
by no means surprising. Preliminary mention is made 
(ver. 14) of Jacob's lodging that night himself, while he 
sent forward the present to his brother, which is then 
described in detail with the accompanying arrangements 
(vs. 14b-22a). At the close of this description the nar- 
rative, thus interrupted, is once more resumed by repeat- 
ing the statement that Jacob " lodged that night in the 
company" (ver. 22b). This clause, as Dillmann cor- 
rectly remarked in his first edition, is a "connecting 
link" with the following account of Avhat further took 
place that same night, which was so momentous a crisis 
not only in respect to the peril encountered, but as the 
turning-point in the spiritual history and character of 
Jacob. The repetition of this clause tends in no way 
to create the suspicion that the narrative is a composite 
one ; on the contrary, it proceeds by regular and closely 
related steps, every one of which has a direct and mani- 
fest bearing upon the final issue. 

An additional evidence of duplication is sought in the 
double allusion to the name Mahanaim, which, we are 
told, E and J understand and explain differently. Only 
it is unfortunate for the effect of this argument that 
Wellhausen and Dillmann cannot agree how E did un- 
derstand it. They are clear, however, that J regarded it 
as a dual, and meant to explain it by the " two com- 
panies," or camps, into which Jacob divided his train (vs. 
8, 9, 11) ; whereupon, they tell us, he must have added, 
" Therefore the place was called Mahanaim." R pru- 
dently omitted this statement because of its conflict with 
ver. 3, where the origin of the name is accounted for in 
another way. But such a mention of the name of the 
place by J is thought to be implied in ver. 14a, "he 
lodged there." Undoubtedly " there " refers to a place 
before spoken of, either one actually found in the text 



376 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

(xxxii. 3 E, the wrong document for the critics), or one 
that they tell us ought to be there, though it is not. 
About E's view of the matter there is not the same agree- 
ment. Wellhausen alleges that he took Mahanaim for a 
singular, and was correct in so doing, aim being a modi- 
fied form of the local ending am, and hence in ver. 22 
he writes it as a singular, Mahane, the name being sug- 
gested by his meeting a host of angels. Dillmann re- 
gards it as a dual in E also, suggested by the two com- 
panies or camps, that of the angels and that of Jacob. 
But however this question may be settled, different al- 
lusions to the signification of the name Mahanaim in the 
same connection are not an indication of distinct writers, 
as we have already seen repeatedly in other instances. 
It is further said that ver. 22 speaks of Jacob's com- 
pany as a unit ; the writer knows nothing of its division 
into two companies as in vs. 8, 9. But in precisely 
the same way Esau speaks (xxxiii. 8) of the five suc- 
cessive droves which he had met, being the present 
which Jacob designed for him (xxxii. 14-17) as a single 
company. 

Further, according to the division of the critics, E 
(ver. 18) presupposes the coming of Esau announced in J 
(ver. 7), and all the arrangements made in E imply ap- 
prehensions which are only stated in J (vs. 8, 9). They 
are in fact so interwoven that they cannot be separated. 
And Dillmann finds it necessary to assume that vs. 4-7 
are preliminary alike to E and J, though his only ground 
for suspecting their composite character is the twofold 
designation of the region (ver. 4) as " the land of Seir, 
the field of Edom." Certainly no one but a critic intent 
on doublets could have suspected one here. Mount Seir 
had been spoken of (xiv. 6) as the country of the Horites. 
Esau had now taken up his quarters, provisionally at 
least; in what was to be his future abode and that of his 



JACOB AND ESAU (CHS. XXXII. 4-XXXIII. 17) 377 

descendants. This is here intimated by calling Seir by 
anticipation " the field of Edom." 

But Dillinann has found another doublet, which even 
Wellhausen had failed to see ; yer. 23 is J's, and ver. 24 
E's account of crossing the Jabbok. In the former 
Jacob crosses with his family ; in the latter he sends his 
family before him and himself remains behind. And 
this is paraded as a variance, requiring two distinct 
writers. Is it not as plain as day that ver. 23 is a gen- 
eral statement of the fact that they all alike crossed the 
stream, while in ver. 24 it is stated more particularly 
that he first sent over his family, and then his goods, and 
that a very remarkable incident occurred to himself after 
he was thus left alone ? Dillmann himself so explained 
it in his first edition, his only doubt being whether Jacob 
crossed with the rest to the south bank of the Jabbok, 
and was there left behind while they moved on, or 
whether he continued for a while on the north bank 
after all had been sent over. The latter is the common 
opinion, though the former might be consistent with the 
language used. As Penuel has not been identified, it 
may be uncertain on which side of the stream the mys- 
terious conflict described in the following verses took 
place. 

Jacob's wkestling with the angel 

Here again the critics diverge. Are vs. 24-33 by J, the 
author of xxxii. 4-14a and xxxiii. 1-17? or by E, the 
author of xxxii. 14b-22 ? Wellhausen says J most de- 
cidedly ; Kuenen and Driver agree with him ; Dillmann 
says E with equal positiveness. Other critics follow 
their liking one way or the other. There is a conflict of 
criteria. The literary tests point one way, the matter of 
the passage the other. Thus Wellhausen : " The whole 
character of the narrative points to J. E, who has God 



378 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

appear in dreams, and call from heaven, and then, too, 
sometimes introduces the angel or angels as a medium, 
cannot have related such a corporeal theophany ; on the 
other hand we are reminded of xv. 17 seq., and of ch. xviii., 
xix. J." Kuenen (" Hexateuch," p. 250) claims on the same 
ground that " it falls in far better with J's than with E's 
tone of thought." Dillmann points to Elohim (vs. 29, 
31) as decisive for E, and claims that " Wellhausen's op- 
posing grounds prove nothing or rest on bare postu- 
lates." Delitzsch says, " The name Elohim is by itself 
alone no decisive criterion against J," thus dislodging 
the very foundation-stone of the divisive hypothesis, and 
adds, "The answer to the question whether J or E is the 
narrator remains uncertain and purely subjective." 

The readiness with which the critics can upon occa- 
sion set aside their own tests, whether derived from the 
matter or the literary form, tends to confirm the belief 
that they are of a precarious nature generally, and that 
the verdict of Delitzsch as to the subjective character of 
critical conclusions is applicable to other instances be- 
sides the present. Dr. Harper uses the following lan- 
guage in relation to this and the preceding chapters : * 
" The individual variations of critics, touching this sec- 
tion (xxviii. 10-xxxiii. 17), many and arbitrary as they 
may be, are due to special considerations. They are 
unanimous as to the existence of an analysis. This sec- 
tion, it is universally admitted, is very unsatisfactory ; 
the duplicates and differences relate wholly to details, 
not to general narratives, while the omissions are many 
and important. If it were necessary to rely wholly on 
this section, no critic would claim an analysis." All crit- 
ical differences are thus sunk in one grand consensus. 
"They are unanimous as to the existence of an analysis," 
whether they can agree upon any particular analysis or 

1 Hebraica, V. iv., p. 284. 



JACOB AXD ESAU (CHS. XXXII. 4-XXXIII. 17) 379 

not. And we have had abundant exemplification of the 
fact that where there is a determination to effect the 
partition of a passage, notwithstanding the clearest evi- 
dences of its unity, it can always be done with reason or 
without it. 

In his first edition Dillmann ventured the suggestion 
that " in E this narrative (of Jacob's wrestling with the 
angel) did not necessarily stand in any intimate connec- 
tion with the meeting of the two brothers ; and at all 
events its peculiar significance as preparatory to the 
meeting with Esau, and as supplementary to the prayer 
(vs. 10-13), was first acquired by its being fitted into its 
present place by R." By thus isolating the passage from 
the connection, from which its whole significance is de- 
rived, in a manner better suited to the fragment than 
the document hypothesis, it is easy to pervert its whole 
meaning and character, as though it stood on a level 
with the stories of heathen mythology, just as the same 
thing is done with vi. 1-4, by sundering it from all 
that goes before and that comes after. In subsequent 
editions Dillmann regards the wrestling with the angel 
as parallel to the prayer (vs. 10-13), only he apportions 
them to different documents, and thus impairs the unity 
of the narrative. 

Jacob has hitherto been relying upon his own strength 
and skill, and has sought success by artifices of his own. 
He is now taught that his own strength is of no avail in 
wrestling with God. Disabled by the touch of his di- 
vine antagonist he is obliged to resort to importunate 
petition for the blessing which he craved, and which he 
could not do without. 

The verb "abak," tvrestled (vs. 25, 26), which occurs 
nowhere else, is here used with allusion to the name of 
the stream, Jabbok, on the bank of which it occurred, 
without, however, implying that it received this name 



380 THE GENERATIONS OE ISAAC 

from this occurrence. The double allusion to the sig- 
nificance of the name Penuel (xxxii. 31 ; xxxiii. 10 *) is 
adduced as evidencing two distinct documents, which it 
manifestly does not. 

NO PROOF OF A PARALLEL NARRATIVE 

While xxxiii. 1-17 is referred to J, Dillmann seeks to 
show that E must have had a similar account by point- 
ing out what he considers indications of fragments from 
E, which have been inserted by K, viz., Elohim, which 
occurs inconveniently in a J paragraph (vs. 5, 11) (but 
not ver. 10, where he says Jehovah could not be used), 
the repetition (ver. 11) of the request (ver. 10) that 
Esau would accept the present offered him (which sim- 
ply indicates Jacob's urgency), and ver. 4, where " fell 
on his neck " follows " embraced him," whereas the re- 
verse would be the natural order (the same hypercritical 
argument might be applied to Acts v. 30, " whom ye slew 
and hanged on a tree "). It can scarcely be said that 
such proofs are of even the slightest weight. 

THE DIVINE NAMES 

The divine names are appropriately used. Jacob ad- 
dresses his pray er to Jehovah (xxxii. 10). Elohim occurs 
(xxxii. 29, 31 ; xxxiii. 10) because of the contrast with 
men, expressed or implied, and xxxiii. 5, 11, because the 
reference is to the providential benefits of the Most 
High, as well as for the additional reason that Esau is 
addressed, who is outside of the line of the covenant. 

1 The absurdities to which critical partition, aided by a lively imag- 
ination, can lead is well illustrated by Wellhausen's discovery, based on 
these verses, that '• the God in J, who meets Jacob in Penuel, is Esau in 
E," an identification which he thinks of some importance in the his- 
tory of religion, as adding another to the list of deities. 



JACOB AND ESAU (CHS. XXXII. 4-XXXIII. 17) 381 



MARKS OF J 

1. The back reference in xxxii. 10 to xxviii. 13 ; xxxi. 
3 ; and in ver. 13 to xxviii. 14, the expressions being in 
part conformed to xxii. 17 (of which by the hypothesis J 
could know nothing), xvi. 10. This is not only readily 
conceded, but affirmed. 

2. ftESp 1DH T\W show mercy and truth (xxxii. 11). 
See ch. xviii., xix., Marks of J, No. 29, ch. xxiv., Marks 
of J, No. 6. 

3. nn&tiJ bondmaid (xxxii. 6), where this is the only 
proper word ; and xxxiii. 1, 2, 6, where the reference is 
to Zilpah and Bilhah, and either nnsflj or m# would be 
appropriate. See ch. xxi. 1-21, Marks of E, No. 11, ch. 
xxix., xxx., Marks of J, No. 4. 

4. n&npb yv\ run to meet (xxxiii. 4). See ch. xxix., xxx., 
Marks of J, No. 2. 

5. n^n divided (xxxiii. 1 ; xxxii. 8) ; nowhere else in 
J ; it occurs besides in the Hexateuch only, Ex. xxii. 35 
bis E ; Num. xxxi. 27, 42 a later stratum of P. 

6. *W2 "jH ^riXStt 8J"Dtf if note I have found favor 
in the sight of (xxxii. 6 ; xxxiii. 8, 10). See ch. xii. 10- 
20, Marks of J, No. 3 ; ch. vi. 1-8, Marks of J, No. 10. 

No words or expressions are claimed for E in this sec- 
tion. Alleged doublets and variant conceptions are the 
only indications of this document here adduced, and 
these have all been considered above, *ib? child, which 
is claimed as an E word in xxi. 1-21 (see Marks of E, 
No. 6) occurs here, xxxii., 23 ; xxxiii. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 
all which are referred to J. This word is used through- 
out this narrative because the children were quite young, 
only from six to thirteen years of age. 



382 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 



THE RAPE OF DINAH (CH. XXXIII. 18-XXXIV.) 

This passage is a fresh puzzle for the critics, which 
they labor to resolve in various ways, and hence there is 
no little divergence among them. The difficulty here is 
not the chronic one of disentangling J and E, but of re- 
leasing P from the meshes in which it is involved. It is 
a notable refutation of the common assertion that what- 
ever difficulty may attend the separation of J and E, it 
is always easy to distinguish P from them both. And it 
is a clear illustration of the fact that, wherever part of a 
narrative is conceded to P it is interlocked with the 
other documents as closely as they are with one another. 
This passage is so linked with what precedes and follows 
in the history, there are so many references to other 
passages in it and from other passages to it, it is so allied 
by forms of expression and ideas contained in it to pas- 
sages elsewhere, and all this runs counter in so many 
ways to the prepossessions and conclusions of the critics, 
as to form a veritable labyrinth through which it requires 
all their adroitness to thread their way. 

The name of God occurs but once in the entire pas- 
sage (xxxiii. 20), so that all pretext is cut off for division 
on that ground. " El-Elohe-Israel," the Mighty God, the 
God of Israel, to whom Jacob dedicates the altar, is the 
distinctive name of him whom he adores. The God of 
Abraham and of Isaac has been with him, and kept him, 
and provided for him, and brought him back to the land 
of his fathers in peace, and has thus shown himself to be 
the God of Jacob (xxviii. 13, 15, 20, 21) ; or adopting the 
new name, indicative of the changed character of the 
patriarch (xxxii. 29), he is the God of Israel. 



THE RAPE OF DINAH (CHS. XXXIII. 18-XXXIV.) 383 



JACOBS ARRIVAL IN SHECHEM 

Ch. xxxiii. 18-20 completes an important stage of Ja- 
cob's journey, begun xxxi. 17, and continued ch. xxxv., 
while it is immediately preliminary to the incident re- 
corded in ch. xxxiv. The simple statements contained 
in these verses, naturally as they belong together, give 
no small trouble to the critics, who are obliged to parcel 
them among the different documents. 

" And Jacob came in peace to the city of Shechem, 
which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from 
Paddan-aram" (ver. 18a), is given to P because of the 
italicized expressions ; and yet it explicitly alludes to 
Jacob's vow (xxviii. 21 E), whose condition is declared 
to have been fulfilled, and hence (xxxv. 1 E) the per- 
formance of what he then stipulated is demanded. 
There is no escape from this manifest reference in one 
document to the contents of another but by striking " in 
peace " out of the text. Again, P here records the ter- 
mination of an expedition on which he had laid great 
stress at Jacob's setting out (xxviii. 1-5 N ), but all be- 
tween these limits is almost an absolute blank. P has 
not said one word to indicate whether Jacob had accom- 
plished the purpose for which he went to Paddan-aram. 
Still further, Jacob's route, it is said, is purposely laid 
through the holy places, Shechem and Bethel (xxxv. 6, 
15). The fact is just the reverse of what is alleged. 
The hallowing of certain localities in later times did not 
give rise to the stories of their having been visited by 
patriarchs and being the scene of divine manifestations. 
But their association with the history of the patriarchs 
imparted a sacredness, which led to their selection as 
places of idolatrous worship. Admitting, however, the 
explanation of the critics, why should P and J (see also 



384 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

xii. 6, 8), who belonged to Judah, be concerned to put 
honor on the schismatical sanctuaries of northern Is- 
rael? 

" Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan ; " the rela- 
tive clause is not a needless expletive, due to P's cus- 
tomary verbosity. It emphasizes the fact that Jacob has 
now at length reached the holy land, from which he had 
been so long absent. And " Luz, which is in the land of 
Canaan " (xxxv. 6), has the same significance ; the im- 
plied contrast is not with another Luz, but with another 
land in which Jacob had been ever since he was at Luz 
before. 

Verse 19 is repeated in Josh. xxiv. 32, which records the 
burial of the bones of Joseph in the plot of ground here 
purchased, and by critical rules is assigned to E, who as 
a North-Israelite would be interested in this event as P 
and J would not. Jacob's ownership of land near She- 
chem is confirmed by his flocks subsequently feeding 
there (xxxvii. 12 in J, who thus seems to be aware of a 
fact only stated in E). This peaceable purchase, how- 
ever, is alleged by Kuenen and others to be at variance 
with the violent seizure related xxxiv. 25-27, as though 
this were a conflicting account from another source of the 
way in which Jacob came into the possession of property 
in that quarter. And yet ver. 19 is plainly preparatory 
for ch. xxxiv. Ham or is called "Shechem's father" for 
no other reason than to introduce the reader to the prom- 
inent actor in the narrative that follows (xxxiv. 2) ; this 
can only be evaded by pronouncing " Shechem's father " 
a spurious addition by R. E, too (xlviii. 22), refers to a 
conquest by force of arms, which must have been addi- 
tional to the purchase ; a conclusion which Wellhausen 
seeks to escape by giving ver. 19 to J (Judsean though he 
is), and ascribing xxxiv. 27 not to J, but to some unknown 
source. Jacob's purchase recalls that of Abraham (ch. 



THE RAPE OF DINAH (CHS. XXXTTT. 18-XXXIV.) 385 

xxiii. P), and is based on the same principle of acquiring 
a permanent and a legal right to a property in the holy 
land. There is certainly as good reason to claim that 
they are by the same author as the critics are able to 
advance in many instances in which they assume iden- 
tity of authorship as undoubted. 

" El - Elohe - Israel " (ver. 20) clearly refers back to 
xxxii. 29, the change of the patriarch's name, thus 
clinching Dillmann's conclusion that the wrestling on 
the banks of the Jabbok must on critical grounds be as- 
signed to E, whose anthropomorphism here equals that 
of J. But this name (xxxiii. 20), which points to E, is 
linked with the erection of an altar, which is commonly 
distinctive of J (xii. 7, 8, etc.). E for the most part sets 
up pillars instead (xxviii. 18 ; xxxv. 14, 20). The text 
must accordingly be adjusted to the hypothesis. The 
only question about which there is a difference of opin- 
ion is, shall " altar " be erased and " pillar " substituted ? 
Or shall E be supposed to have had two texts before 
him, " built an altar " (J), and " set up a pillar " (E), 
which he has mixed by taking the verb from E and the 
noun from J. 

Dillmann suspects that ver. 18b is from J, because of 
]n*1 encamped, which occurs but once besides in Genesis 
(xxvi. 17 J), though in subsequent books repeatedly 
both in P and E, and ^STtf before (xix. 13, 27 ; Ex. 
xxxiv. 23, 24 J ; but also Lev. iv. 6, 17 ; x. 4 P ; and 
Gen. xxvii. 30 ; Ex. x. 11 E). If J relates what oc- 
curred at Shechem (ch. xxxiv.), it is certainly to be ex- 
pected that he would mention Jacob's arrival there ; 
hence the eagerness of the critics to find some indica- 
tions of J in these verses. So that P, J", E, and K are 
all represented in fragments of these three verses ; and 
one scarcely knows which to admire most, the ingenuity 
of a redactor who could construct a continuous narra- 
25 



386 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

tive in this piecemeal fashion, or that of the modern 
critic who can unravel such a tangled web. 

CRITICAL DIFFICULTIES 

The stress laid upon circumcision in ch. xxxiv. by the 
sons of Jacob, recalls its institution in the family of 
Abraham (ch. xvii.), and the transactions in the public 
meeting of citizens resemble those in ch. xxiii., and there 
is a striking similarity of expressions in these chapters ; 
e.g. : IDT-bs Dob biftH every male of you be circumcised 
(vs. 15, 22 ; cf. the identical expression, xvii. 10, 12) ; 
nDT"b3 every male (vs. 24, 25 ; cf. xvii. 23) ; tmy foreskin, 
uncircumcised (ver. 14 ; cf. xvii. 11, 14, 23 sqq.) ; &ra2 
prince (ver. 2 ; cf. xvii. 20 ; xxiii. 6) ; ^THijn get you pos- 
sessions (ver. 10) ; cf. ST-fllS possession (xvii. 8 ; xxiii. 4, 9, 
20) ; nno trade (vs. 10,' 21), cf. nnb trader (xxiii. 16) ; 
V\*>y nyil? ifittp^3 all that went out of the gate of his city 
(ver. 24 bis), cf. Vv*? njpfl? TOla Vs all that went in at the 
gate of his city (xxiii. 10, 18) ; SET? defile (vs. 5, 13, 27) is 
a technical term of the ritual law, and is found nowhere 
else in the Pentateuch. Knobel adds, as characteristic 
of P from the critical stand-point : f^n tli23 daughters 
of the land (ver. 1) ; "btf WQW hearken unto (vs. 17, 24) ; 
1^3p substance : trans beast (ver. 23). Dillmann further 
adds ^rt only (vs. 15,' 22, 23). 

All this points to P as the author of the chapter. But 
according to the current critical analysis P knows noth- 
ing of the various characters here introduced, nor of the 
chain of events with which this narrative is concate- 
nated ; and in fact the narrative itself is altogether out of 
harmony with the spirit and tone of this document as 
the critics conceive it. It is E (xxx. 21) that records 
the birth of Dinah, 1 evidently with a view to what is 

1 Von Bohlen imagines a chronological contradiction between xxx. 21 
and ch. xxxiv. He calculates that Dinah could be " scarcely six or 



THE RAPE OF DINAH (CHS. XXXIII. 18-XXXIV.) 387 

here related of her ; just as xxix. 24, 29 is preparatory 
for xxx. 4, 9 ; xxii. 23 for xxiv. 15 sqq. ; xix. 15 for vs. 30 
sqq. Otherwise it would not have been mentioned (cf. 
xxxii. 23 ; xxxvii. 35 ; xlvi. 7). It is J and E that tell 
of the sons of Jacob (xxxiv. 7, 27 ; cf. xxix. 32 sqq.), and 
particularly of Simeon and Levi, own brothers of Dinah 
(xxxiv. 25). It is E that tells of the change of Jacob's 
name to Israel (xxxiv. 7 ; cf. xxxii. 29), and introduces 
the reader to Shechem and his father Hamor (xxxiv. 2 ; 
cf. xxxiii. 19). It is J and E that detail the various 
trials with which the life of Jacob was filled in one con- 
tinuous series from the time of the fraud which he prac- 
tised upon his aged father and his brother Esau, viz., his 
compulsory flight, Laban's deceiving him in his mar- 
riage, attempting to defraud him in his wages and pur- 
suing him with hostile intent on his way to Canaan, his 
alarm at the approach of Esau, and last and sorest of all, 
the loss of his favorite, Joseph. According to the crit- 
ical partition, P makes no allusion to any of these troub- 
les. They are all of one tenor and evidently belong to- 
gether, and this disgrace of Jacob's daughter fits into its 
place among them. And we are told that it is alien to 
P to record anything derogatory to any of the patriarchs. 

seven years old" at the time referred to in ch. xxxiv., inasmuch as she 
was Leah's seventh child, Jacob married Leah after seven years of ser- 
vice, and he remained in all twenty years with Laban. But he over- 
looks the fact that Jacob had meanwhile resided for a considerable 
time both at Succoth (xxxiii. 17), where " he built him a house," and at 
Shechem. where (ver. 19) '" he bought a parcel of ground." The length 
of his stay in these two places is not particularly stated. But as Joseph 
was born (xxx. 25) when Jacob had served Laban fourteen years, he was 
six years old when they left Paddan-aram. Eleven years consequently 
elapsed between the departure from Paddan-aram and what is recorded 
in ch. xxxvii. (see ver. 2). We are at entire liberty to assume that ten 
of these had passed before ch. xxxiv., in which case Dinah would be 
sixteen or seventeen. Her youth is implied ver. 4, where she is called 



388 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

There are subsequent allusions also to this history in J 
(xlix. 5, 6) and in E (xxxv. 5 ; xlviii. 22). 

DIVERGENCE OF THE CRITICS 

Thus this chapter is strongly bound to P on the one 
hand, and to J and E on the other, in a manner that is 
not compatible with the original separateness of these 
so-called documents. The early critics, Astruc and 
Eichhorn, accepted the unity of ch. xxxiv. without ques- 
tion. Ilgen did the same, notwithstanding his disposi- 
tion to splinter whatever seemed capable of separation. 
Tuch, who recognized no distinction between P and E, 
unhesitatingly assigned the whole of the chapter to P ; 
so did Ewald, Gramberg, and Stahelin. Hupfeld, un- 
able to dispute the unity of the chapter, gave it in the 
first instance to E, in spite of its admitted relationship to 
P ("Quellen," p. 46) ; but on second thought he assigned 
it to J (" Quellen," pp. 186 sqq.), in which Kayser and 
Schrader follow him. 1 

On the ground of language and the comparison of 
xlix. 5-7, from which the inference was drawn that in the 
original form of the story Simeon and Levi were the 
only actors and no plunder was taken, Knobel supposed 
that the groundwork of the story was by P, but this was 

i In how serious a quandary Hupfeld found himself in regard to the 
disposition of this chapter is apparent from the manner of his argument 
in reversing his former decision. He says that the grounds for refer- 
ring it to P are " weighty and difficult to be set aside ; " on his original 
assumption that xxxiii. 19 and xxxv. 5 belong to E, he cannot conclude 
otherwise in regard to ch. xxxiv. ; nevertheless xlix. 5-7 compels him 
to assign it to J, while xlviii. 2'3 makes it necessary to maintain that E 
had here a similar narrative which R has not preserved. He then frees 
himself from the embarrassment created by xxxiii. 19 and xxxv. 5 by 
transferring these verses to J. In a note he offers the conjecture, of 
which others have since availed themselves, that vs. 27-29 may be an 
interpolation or inserted from another source. 



THE RAPE OF DINAH (CHS. XXXIII. 18-XXXIV.) 389 

supplemented and enlarged by J with matter taken from 
another source. 1 

Dillmann made a different partition and maintained 
that the want of agreement and coherence between the 
parts is such as to show that two separate narratives 
have been fused together by a redactor. In his first 

1 The different critical analyses of ch. xxxiv. 

Knobel : Grundschrift. vs. 1-4, 6, 15-18, 20-26. Kriegsbuch, vs. 5, 
7-14, 19, 27-31. 

Dillmann (1st) : P, vs. 1, 2a, 4, 6, 8-10, 15-18a, 20-24 (25, 26 in 
part). J, vs. 2b, 3, 5, 7, 11-14, 18b, 19 (25, 26 in part), 27-31. 

Dillmann (3d) : P, vs. la, 2a, 4, 6, 8-10, 15, (14)-17, 20-24. J, vs. 
2b, 3, 5, 7, 11-13 (14), 19, 25*, 26, 30, 31. R, vs. 27-29. 

Kittell follows Dillmann (3d). 

Wellhausen : J, vs. 3. 7*, 11, 12, 19, 25*, 26, 30, 31. Unknown 
Source, vs. 1*. 2* 4-6, 8-10, 13*, 14* 15-17, 20-24, 25*, 27-29. 

Oort : Interpolation, " deceitfully,'" ver. 13, vs. 27. 28. 

Boebmer : J, vs. 1*, 2*, 3, 4 ; 6, 8-12, 13*, 14-22, 24-26a, 28-30. 
R, vs. lb, 2b, 5, 7, 13*, 23, 26b, 27, 31. 

Delitzsch : P, vs. 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 14-18, 20-24. J, vs. 3, 5, 7, 11, 
12, 19, 25, 26, 30, 31. E, vs. 13, 27-29. 

Colenso (Pentateuch, Part VII. Appendix, p. 149) : J, vs. 1, 2a, 3a, 
4, 6, 7a, 8-1 3a. 14-24. D, vs. 2b, 3b, 5, 7b, 13b, 25-31. 

Driver : J, vs. 2b, 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 19, 25*, 26, 30, 31. P, vs. 1, 2a, 
4, 6, 8-10, 13-18, 20-24, 25*, 27-29. 

Dr. Driver, while confessing that "the analysis is not throughout 
equally certain," adopts substantially Wellhausen's division. Only (1) 
he attributes to P, on the ground of unmistakable marks of P's style, 
what Wellhausen and Kuenen positively declare could not be his, thus 
annulling (as he has frequent occasion besides to do in the middle 
books of the Pentateuch) his often-repeated statement that P is clearly 
distinguishable from J, and even his more carefully guarded assertion 
that " in Genesis as regards the limits of P there is practically no differ- 
ence of opinion among critics."' — Literature of Old Testament, p. 9. 
And (2) he somewhat inconsistently transfers ver. 5 to J, though he 
thinks it to be at variance with ver. 30 : "'In ver. 30 Jacob expresses 
dissatisfaction at what his sons have done, while from ver. 5 it would 
be inferred that they had merely given effect to their father's resent- 
ment." If this discrepancy is no bar to the reference of vs. 5 and 30 
to the same document, why shoiild the other discrepancies "inferred" 
by the critics, but which are also purely imaginary, hinder our belief in 
the common authorship of the entire chapter ? 



390 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

edition he held that, according to the earlier form of the 
story given by P, Shechem, a native prince, asks the 
hand of Dinah in marriage, whereupon Jacob and his 
sons promise to consent to intermarriages between them- 
selves and the Shechemites on condition of the circum- 
cision of the latter. And the house of Jacob was on the 
point of affiliating with the citizens of Shechem when 
Simeon and Levi, whose zeal was aroused for the purity 
of their race and to prevent its contamination by inter- 
mingling with Gentiles, frustrated the plan by assault- 
ing the city and putting Shechem and his father to 
death. In a later form of the story given by J, Jacob's 
sons were angered not at the prospect of their sister's 
marriage with a foreigner, but at her actual dishonor. 
They propose the circumcision of the Shechemites, not 
sincerely as in P, but craftily, with the design of aveng- 
ing their sister's betrayal. And the credit of punishing 
the crime of Shechem is assigned, not to Simeon and 
Levi alone, but to all the sons of Jacob. 

In later editions Dillmann modifies his view materi- 
ally by rejecting vs. 27-29 as a later interpolation, and 
transferring vs. 25, 26 from P to J, thus no longer mak- 
ing P prior to J, and relieving P from recording a vari- 
ance in the patriarchal family. P's account is then sim- 
ply concerned with the legal question as to the proper 
procedure in giving a daughter in marriage to a foreigner. 
The answer given is, that in order to intermarriage with 
the Shechemites they must first be circumcised. To this 
they assent in the persuasion that the advantage will be 
greatly on their side, and that the house of Jacob, losing- 
its distinctive character, will become a part of themselves 
(vs. 21-24). Here the narrative breaks off unfinished 
without disclosing the final issue. If P approved of this 
arrangement he must, as Kuenen 1 argues, "have been 

1 Gesammelte Abhandlungen, p. 263. 



THE KAPE OF DIXAH (CHS. XXXIII. 18-XXXIV.) 391 

more of a Haraorite than an Israelite, or at least neutral 
in respect to the two clans." And he positively refuses 
" to admit the existence of such a species until another 
specimen of it is discovered." J's account on this 
scheme is that the most honored man in Shechem (ver. 
19) carried off Dinah and dishonored her. But as his 
love to her grew, he desired her in marriage from Jacob 
and his sons, and offers any compensation in the way of 
bridal gift. The brothers, exasperated at the disgrace of 
their sister, deceitfully make the condition the circumci- 
sion of Shechem (whether that of the other citizens of 
the place also is uncertain), and when he is disabled by 
the resulting sickness, Simeon and Levi kill him and re- 
cover their sister. Jacob blames them severely for hav- 
ing placed him and his family in peril by their rash 
deed. The redactor is responsible for confusing the ac- 
counts to some extent, and especially for inserting the cir- 
cumcision and massacre of the Shechemites in J's ac- 
count in ver. 25 ; and he betrays his later stand-point by 
the strong expression, " defile their sister " (vs. 27, 13b, 
5 ; see also ver. 14b). 

Wellhausen makes a different disposition of several 
verses and brings out quite a different result. He takes 
his point of departure from an alleged discrepancy be- 
tween vs. 26 and 27. In vs. 25, 26, and again ver. 30, the 
deed is imputed to Simeon and Levi, but in ver. 27 to 
the sons of Jacob, i.e., the children of Israel. One ac- 
count, J's, represented in the former of these passages, 
but only preserved in a fragmentary way, makes of it a 
family affair. Simeon and Levi avenge the wrong done 
their sister by entering Hamor's house and killing 
Shechem, when he was off his guard, to the great offence 
of Jacob. There was no circumcision in the case. 
Shechem had offered any dowry, however large, in order 
to obtain Dinah in marriage. We have no means of 



392 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

knowing how much was demanded ; but, whatever it was, 
Shechem had promptly paid it. The other, which is the 
principal account, deals with international relations, out 
of which perhaps the story grew. It cannot therefore 
belong to either P or E, but is of unknown origin. It is 
an affair between the Bne Israel and the Bne Hamor, 
whose capital was Shechem. The latter submitted to 
circumcision with a view to a friendly alliance, and when 
disabled in consequence were treacherously massacred. 
Though E is excluded from this chapter by Welihansen, 
the evident allusions to this history in E oblige him to 
confess that he must have had a similar narrative in this 
place as the motive for Jacob's removal from Shechem 
(see xxxv. 5). It is also unfortunate for his analysis that 
ver. 25 has to be reconstructed ; for in its present form 
it implies the circumcision and affirms the assault upon 
the city and the massacre of its citizens, showing that 
Simeon and Levi had assistance. And this is confirmed 
by ver. 30, where Jacob apprehends reprisals, not from 
the Shechemites, but from the inhabitants of the land 
generally, and also by xlix. 5, 6, which speaks of vio- 
lence done to oxen as well as men. 

Oort * held that this chapter (freed from the interpola- 
tions vs. 27, 28, and " deceitfully," ver. 13) dates from 
the period of the judges, and is explanatory of the situa- 
tion described in Judg. ix. (see ver. 28. ) 2 "In the form of 

1 Oorfrs Bible for Learners, English Translation, vol. i. , p. 398. 

2 This passage, by which Oort seeks to discredit the narrative in 
Gen. xxxiv.. is. on the contrary, urged by Havernick in confirmation of 
its historical accuracy. Gaal's appeal to the Shechemites, to " serve 
the men of Hamor. the father of Shechem/ implies that the descend- 
ants of Hamor were the prominent ruling family of the place. The 
title, "father of the city of Shechem.'' suggests that Hamor was its 
founder, naming it after his son When Abram passed through the 
place (Gen. xii. 6) there is no intimation that there was as yet any 
city. This is first mentioned in the time of Jacob ; and its recent 



THE It APE OF DINAH (CHS. XXXIII. 18-XXXIV.) 393 

a family history of the patriarchal period the narrator 
has here given us a fragment of the history of the Israel- 
ite people, or at any rate of some of the tribes. . . . 
The legend deals with one of the burning questions of 
the period of the Judges — the question whether Israelites 
and Canaanites might intermarry. The practice was 
very advantageous to both parties, and especially to the 
conquered race ; but to the Israelite of pure blood, who 
looked down with contempt upon the old inhabitants of 
the place, it was an abomination. The Canaanites are 
represented in the legend under the person of Shechem, 
the son of Hamor, which shows that this question was 
debated in the city of Shechem, where the Hamorites, a 
Hivite tribe, were settled. This fact enables us to bring 
the legend into connection with the history of Abimelech, 
and to find the counterparts of the zealots, Simeon and 
Levi, in Gaal and his brothers." 

Kuenen, in his " Eeligion of Israel," i., pp. 311, 409, 
accepted this view of Oort, though differing from him as 
to the date and analysis of the chapter and its specific 
reference to the particular occasion spoken of in Judg. 
ix. Nevertheless he " fully assented to Oort's main idea," 
that Gen. xxxiv. " gives us historical reminiscences from 
the period of the Judges in the form of a narrative about 
the patriarchal age." "Shechem and his father Hamor 
represent in this narrative the Canaanites, who are in- 
clined to intermarry with Israel, and who submit to the 
conditions attached to this step. Simeon and Levi con- 
sider such a contract an abomination and feign satisfac- 
tion with it only to hinder it the more effectually. This 
narrative already discloses the idea that the violent 
measures to which the adherents of the strictly national 
tendency were obliged to resort in order to attain their 

origin and consequent insignificance accounts for the successful attack 
upon it by Simeon and Levi and their adherents. 



394 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

purpose, were looked upon by many as questionable and 
dangerous " (ver. 30). 

In an article x published in 1880, Kuenen accepts the 
analysis of Wellhausen, and agrees with him that in J's 
account Jacob and his sons impose a heavy money for- 
feit upon Shechem and assent to his marriage with Di- 
nah, which would have taken place if Simeon and Levi, 
less yielding than the rest, had not interfered and killed 
Shechem. He differs from Wellhausen in regard to the 
rest of the chapter, which in his esteem is not a sepa- 
rate account, that once existed by itself and was subse- 
quently combined with that of J by a redactor. J's 
account was distasteful to post-exilic readers, and was 
in consequence remodelled into the form in which we 
possess it now. The Philistines are the only ones 
spoken of in pre-exilic writings as uncircumcised, 2 and 
they did not belong to the original inhabitants of Ca- 
naan. The idea that the Bne Hamor, or any other Ca- 
naanitish tribe, were distinguished from the family of Ja- 
cob by being uncircumcised, and that they must be cir- 
cumcised prior to intermarriage with them, could not 
have arisen before the exile. The deed of Shechem is 
judged with such extreme severity, and no punishment 
however treacherous and cruel, is esteemed too great be- 
cause he had " denied " Dinah (vs. 5, 13, 27), which is 
much worse than robbing her of her honor. The word 
conjures up that frightful phantom of post-exilic Judaism, 
alliance with foreigners (see Ezra ix., x). Shechem's 
deed, and no less his effort to make it good, was a crime 
against the people of God to be prevented by fire and 
sword. On these grounds he concludes that this chapter 
has been remodelled, not indeed by P, who could not 

1 Gesammelte Abhandlungen, pp. 255-276. 

2 Judg. xiv. 3 ; xv. 18 ; 1 Sam. xiv. 6 ; xvii. 26, 36 ; xxxi. 4 ; 2 Sam. 
i. 20. 



THE RAPE OF DINAH (CH. XXXIII. 18-XXXIV.) 395 

depart so far from his usage as to introduce this tale of 
treachery and plunder, but by a post-exilic diaskeuast of 
the school of P, who has borrowed his style and his 
ideas. 

All this reasoning, as Dillmann suggests, is of no force 
to those who do not accept Kuenen's assertion that cir- 
cumcision was regarded with indifference in pre-exilic 
times. In fact he overturns it himself in his " Hexateuch," 
p. 326, by leaving it " an open question " whether J's ac- 
count " had itself represented the circumcision of She- 
chem (not of all the citizens) as a condition laid down 
in good faith by the sons of Jacob." 

Merx 1 follows Boehmer in eliminating from the narra- 
tive all that relates to the dishonor of Dinah, the deceit 
of her brothers, and the plunder of the city as interpo- 
lations. What is left is regarded as the original story as 
told by a writer in North Israel. It is to the effect that 
Shechem asked the hand of Dinah in honorable marriage, 
giving the required dowry and submitting likewise to the 
condition of being circumcised, together with his people. 
But Simeon and Levi treacherously fell upon them in 
their sickness and murdered them, to Jacob's great alarm. 
The rest of his sons did not participate in the deed. He 
thus saves the honor of Dinah, but takes away all motive 
for the conduct of Simeon and Levi. The design of the 
original narrator was to affix a stigma upon Simeon and 
Levi, as these tribes adhered to the southern kingdom 
and the worship of Jerusalem. The interpolations of the 
Judaic redactor were apologetic. They represent Si- 
meon and Levi as avenging the honor of their house, 
while the other tribes are also involved in the transaction 
and are solely responsible for the plunder that fol- 
lowed. 

In his first edition Delitzsch assigned the entire chap- 
i Schenkel's Bibel-Lexicon, Art., Dina. 



396 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

ter to P ; he did the same in the third and fourth edi- 
tions, only excepting vs. 27-29 as inserted from another 
source, the sons of Jacob there spoken of being identical 
with Simeon and Levi of ver. 25. In his last edition, 
however, he partitions the chapter somewhat differently 
from his predecessors, and finds two accounts by P and 
by J ! essentially agreeing. In both Dinah is seduced 
by the young prince, who then earnestly desires her in 
marriage ; the circumcision of the Shechemites is made 
the condition in both; in both Dinah is taken off and 
brought back again. There is, besides, a brief passage 
from E, recording the capture and sack of Shechem sim- 
ply as an exploit of the sons of Jacob. 

The critics have thus demonstrated that it is possi- 
ble to sunder this chapter into parts, each of which taken 
separately shall yield a different narrative ; and that this 
can be done very variously, and with the most remarka- 
ble divergence in the results. Now which are we to be- 
lieve, Dillmann, Wellhausen, Oort, Kuenen, Merx, or De- 
litzsch ? They each profess to give us the original form 
or forms of the story, and no two agree. Is it not appar- 
ent that the critical process of each is purely subjective? 
The critic makes out of the narrative just what he pleases, 
selecting such portions as suit him and discarding the 
rest. The result is a mere speculative fancy, without 
the slightest historical value. Delitzsch correctly says, 

1 In defending his analysis Delitzsch remarks that ^5>3 = PH53, i n eac ^ 
of the twenty-one times in which it occurs, "belongs to J or D. To note 
this as characteristic of a particular writer is to affirm that it belonged 
to the text as originally written. This is equivalent, therefore, to a re- 
traction of his opinion expressed in Luthardts Zeitschrift for 1880, Art. 
No. 8. that the use of this word as a feminine as well as a*l!"J = j^n is 
traceable to the manipulation of the text by later diaskeuasts, instead 
of being, as it has commonly been regarded, an archaic form properly 
belonging to the original text of the passages in which it occurs and 
characteristic of the Pentateuch. 



THE RAPE OE DINAH (CH. XXXIII. 1S-XXXIV.) 397 

"Evidence and agreement are here scarcely attainable." 
And what is so obvious here in this discord of the crit- 
ics attaches equally to their methods and results where 
they follow in each other's tracks. The text is decom- 
posed ad libitum into fragments of documents, and emen- 
dations or additions by various editors and redactors. 
The whole thing is regulated by the will or the precon- 
ceived ideas of the critic, and is a mere subjective crea- 
tion, with only basis enough in the literary phenomena to 
give it a faint savor of plausibility. 

The abruptness of this narrative in P, who has made 
no previous mention of any of the parties concerned, has 
already been referred to. Its incompleteness, as made 
out by Dillmann, is suggested by the question to which 
no answer can be given, what became of Dinah ? It is 
insupposable that negotiations of such a character should 
be carried on to the extent indicated and no mention 
made of the issue. It seems that Dinah could not have 
married Shechem since P speaks of her as a member of 
Jacob's family, when he went down into Egypt (xlvi. 15). 
If not, why not, since the condition on which it was de- 
pendent was fulfilled ? Why is nothing further heard of 
this circumcised community at Shechem, and of the in- 
tercourse and intermarriages here anticipated ? Is there 
any explanation of this silence, except that given in the 
verses w r hich Dillmann has so carefully exscinded, and 
of which Kuenen justly says (" Hexateuch," p. 326), " I 
cannot see any possibility of separating these verses (27- 
29) and the corresponding expressions in vs. 5, 13 from 
P's account." 

It is said in explanation of the incompleteness of this 
story in P that it has a legal rather than a historical pur- 
pose. But it is surely very inconsistent in P to enact 
such a law as is here supposed. He informs us that 
Esau's marriage with Canaanites was a great grief to his 



398 THE GENERATIONS OE ISAAC 

parents (xxvi. 35 ; xxviii. 8), and that they would not 
consent to such a marriage on the part of Jacob (xxvii. 
46 ; xxviii. 1, 6). And yet here he is supposed by Dill- 
mann to favor a general regulation for intermarriage with 
Canaanites on condition of their being circumcised. J's 
estimate of the Canaanites and of the peril of contam- 
ination from alliances with them agrees with P's (xxiv. 
3 ; xiii. 13 ; xv. 16 ; xviii. 20 seq. ; ch. xix. ; cf. ver. 29 
P). Even on the principles of the critics themselves it 
cannot be imagined that P here sanctions what is in di- 
rect antagonism to the positive injunctions of every code 
of laws in the Pentateuch, viz. : E, Ex. xxiii. 32, 33 ; J, 
Ex. xxxiv. 12, 15, 16 ; Num. xxxiii. 52, 55, 56 ; Holiness 
LaAvs, Lev. xviii. 24, 25 ; xx. 22, 23 ; D, Deut. vii. 3 ; as 
well as the unanimous voice of tradition (Josh, xxiii. 12, 
13 ; Judg. iii. 6 ; 1 Kin. xi. 1, 4). And if P be thought 
to be post-exilic, it would be more inconceivable still 
(Ezra ix., x. ; Neh. x. 30). And if he formulated such a 
law, what is to be thought of the honesty or the loyalty 
of R in perverting it to its opposite, as is done in this 
narrative ? 

NOT COMPOSITE 

But though the critics differ so widely in their parti- 
tion of this chapter, and though each partition that has 
been proposed is unsatisfactory, it may still be said that 
there are positive proofs of its composite character, even 
though it has not yet been successfully resolved into its 
proper component parts. The bare recital of the proofs 
offered is, however, sufficient to show how inconclusive 
and trivial they are. 

Thus it is argued that, according to vs. 4, 6, 8, Hamor 
conducted the negotiation on behalf of his son, whereas 
in vs. 11, 12, Shechem is represented as himself suing for 
the hand of Dinah. Kuenen here admits the possibility 



THE RAPE OF DINAH (CH. XXXIII. 18-XXXIY.) 399 

of the very natural explanation that " Shechem, in vs. 11, 
12, undertakes to speak after his father ; his love for Di- 
nah does not permit him to be silent ; he must also on 
his own part further apply every possible pressure." His 
objection that we would not infer from vs. 4, 8, that She- 
chem was present at the interview is of no force ; for his 
request that his father would intercede on his behalf, and 
the prominent part taken by Hamor in the matter are 
not inconsistent with Shechem's accompanying him on 
an errand in which he was so deeply interested. That 
Hamor and Shechem were together at the interview is 
distinctly stated (vs. 13, 18), where the critics are obliged 
to assume that R has mixed the two accounts. 

It is said that in ver. 6 P the conference is held with 
Jacob, but in ver. 11 J with Jacob and his sons ; which 
only shows that the entry of Jacob's sons (ver. 7) cannot 
be sundered from ver. 6, as is done by the critics. AVhile 
Hamor was on the way to see Jacob, the sons of the lat- 
ter came in from the field, so that they were all together 
at the interview. Accordingly (ver. 8), Hamor communed 
with them, not with him, as if he spoke to Jacob alone ; 
and (ver. 14) " they said unto them," not he unto him ; 
and " our sister," instead of " my daughter," as if Jacob 
was the sole speaker. As this does not correspond with 
the assumption of the critics, they tell us that E must 
have altered the text here again. 

It is claimed that there is a duplicate account. Ha- 
mor makes his application (vs. 8-10), receives his answer 
(vs. 15 (14)-17), and lays this (vs. 20-24) before a meet- 
ing of the citizens ; again (vs. 11, 12), Shechem makes the 
application, and after receiving the answer at once sub- 
jects himself (ver. 19) to the condition imposed. But 
nothing is duplicated. There is no variant account and 
no repetition. All proceeds regularly. Shechem (ver. 
11) seconds his father's application ; the answer is made 



400 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

to theru both (vs. 13-17), and pleases both (ver. 18). 
Shechem is eager to have the condition fulfilled without 
delay (ver. 19), and he and his father at once bring it to 
the attention of their townsmen (vs. 20-23), who consent 
and comply with the condition (ver. 24). 

It is alleged that the answer in vs. 13-17 is made to 
Hamor's proposal in vs. 8-10 of trade and intermarriage 
between the two clans, and not to Shechem's offer (vs. 
11, 12) of a large dowry in return for the hand of Dinah. 
But, in fact, one common answer is given to both pro- 
posals, each of which is distinctly referred to. And it is 
perfectly true to nature that Shechem should have but 
one thought, his love for Dinah, while his father pro- 
poses general amicable relations, under which the accept- 
ance of his son's suit would follow by legitimate conse- 
quence. 

It is charged that vs. 2b, 26b, conflict with ver. 17b. 
According to the former, Shechem had carried off Dinah 
to his own house, from whence she was rescued by her 
brothers ; but, according to the latter, she was in the pos- 
session of Jacob's family. This is a mistake. Her 
brothers declare their intention (ver. 17) to take her 
away if their demand was not complied with ; to take 
her, that is, from the place where she then was, wherever 
that might be. The verb is identical with that in ver. 
26, where they took her out of Shechem's house. 

" After vs. 2b, 3, one expects the father to be asked to 
apologize to Jacob for the offence committed ; but in- 
stead of this the marriage negotiations are introduced, as 
though all were still intact and the girl was with her 
parents; not a word is said of what had taken place." 
What reparation could be made but marriage ? and this 
is the thing proposed. 

It is further charged as an inconsistency that the deed 
of violence is in ver. 30 attributed to Simeon and Levi, 



THE RAPE OE DINAH (CH. XXXIII. 18-XXXIV.) 401 

as vs. 25, 26, not to the sons of Jacob generally, as vs. 
27-29. Simeon and Levi were the leaders and instiga- 
tors, and as such were chiefly responsible. The massacre 
is attributed to them ; to the others only a participation 
in the subsequent plunder of the city. Why Simeon 
and Levi in particular were so prominent in the affair 
is intimated in ver. 25, where they are spoken of as 
" Dinah's brothers." As sons of Leah they were her 
own brothers ; and next to Reuben, whose weak and vac- 
illating character incapacitated him for resolute action, 
they were her oldest brothers, to whom the protection of 
their sister and the redress of her wrongs naturally de- 
volved (cf. xxiv. 50, 55, 59). Hence Jacob, after hearing 
of the outrage (ver. 5), waits for the return of his sons 
before any steps are taken, and then he leaves the whole 
matter in their hands. The treacherous arid murderous 
scheme concocted and executed by Simeon and Levi, 
with the concurrence of the other sons (ver. 13), was 
without Jacob's knowledge and privity, and incurred his 
severe reprobation (xlix. 5-7). 

Knobel remarks that in xxxiv. 30 " Jacob blames not 
the immorality of the action, but the inconsiderateness of 
his sons, which has plunged him into trouble." But as 
Hengstenberg 1 observes, we see from xxxv. 5 why pre- 

1 Authentie des Pentateuclies, ii., p. 535. Hengstenberg further 
points to the fact that it is the habit of the sacred historian simply to 
report the actions of the patriarchs, without commenting upon their 
moral quality, leaving this to be suggested by the providential retribu- 
tion which followed in the results of their misdeeds. No censure is 
formally passed upon Abram's connection with Hagar ; but the unhap- 
piness which sprang from it constrained him to dismiss her. Jacob 
deceived his father and defrauded his brother, and was in his turn de- 
ceived and defrauded by Laban ; twenty years of toil and enforced 
absence from home, and his alarm at meeting Esau, were the fruit of 
that act of sin. Rebekah's participation in the fraud was punished by 
lifelong separation from her favorite son. Reuben's crime is simply 
related (xxxv. 22) ; judgment upon it is reserved until Jacob's dying 
26 



402 THE GENERATIOKS OF ISAAC 

cisely these words of Jacob are recorded here. Atten- 
tion is drawn to the peril of the situation in order to 
bring to view the divine protection which warded off all 
dangerous consequences. 

That there is no inconsistency in the narrative in its 
present form is substantially admitted by Kuenen, who 
finds no evidence of separate and variant documents, but 
only that the chapter has been remodelled so as to give 
it a different complexion from that which it originally 
had. There may be different opinions as to the remod- 
elling, whether it was the work of ancient diaskeuasts 
or of modern critics; but we can at least agree with 
Kuenen that the text tells a uniform story as it now 
stands. 

MARKS OF P 

1. Diffuseness, e.g., the daughter of Leah, which she 
bore unto Jacob (ver. 1). In what respect is there a 
greater redundancy here than in the almost identical 
repetition xxii. 20b, 23b J ? 

2. WW prince (ver. 2). See ch. xvii., Marks of P, No. 
11. 

3. pton to long for (ver. 8) ; nowhere else in the Hexa- 
teuch, except in Deuteronomy. The occurrence of pn^ 
to cleave unto (ver. 3), as an equivalent is no proof of a 
diversity of writers. See ch. xxxi.-xxxii. 3, Marks of E, 
at the end. 

4. TH&b to get possessions (ver. 10) ; besides in P (xlvii. 
27 ; Num. xxxii. 30 ; Josh. xxii. 9, 19) ; in E (Gen. xxii. 
13) in a different sense. 

5. *DT-b3 DDb bilDH every male of you be circumcised 
(vs. 15, T 22), as xvii. 10, 12. 

6. ^DJ-bs every male (ver. 24). See ch. vi.-ix., Marks 
of P, No. 12. 

words in respect to it are recorded (xlix. 3, 4). It is precisely the same 
with the deed of Simeon and Levi. 



THE RAPE OF DINAH (CH. XXXIII. 18-XXXIV.) 403 

7. btf yaij hearken unto (vs. 17, 24). See ch. xxiii., 
Marks of P, T No. 10. 

8. £0j? substance (ver. 23). See ch. xxxi.-xxxii. 3, 
Marks of P, No. 2. 

9. n^nn beast (ver. 23) ; often besides in P ; but also 
in J (ii. 20 ; iii. 14 ; vii. 2, 8 ; viii. 20, etc.). It is associ- 
ated with n:pi2 cattle as here, also in P (xxxvi. 6) ; in a so- 
called secondary stratum in P (Num. xxxi. 9) ; in J (Gen. 
xlvii. 18 ; Ex. ix. 19 ; Num. xxxii. 26) ; nowhere else in 
the Hexateuch. 

10. ijtf only (vs. 15, 23). See ch. xxvi. 34-xxviii. 9, 
Marks of E, No. 1. 

11. T$ n?i? ^Si"^ all that ivent out of the gate of the 
city (ver. 24), as xxiii. 10, 18. 

MAEKS OF J 

1. pm^ to cleave unto (ver. 3) ; besides in J (ii. 24 ; xix. 
19) ; in E (xxxi. 23) ; in P (Num. xxxvi. 7, 9) ; in D (Josh. 
xxii. 5 ; xxiii. 8, 12) and several times in Deut. 

2. 13?3 damsel (vs. 3, 12), young man (ver. 19) ; the oc- 
currence of rnbi (ver. 4) as a feminine equivalent is no 
indication of a difference of writers. See ch. xxi. 1-2L 
Marks of E, No. 6. 

3. nsr^nn to be grieved (ver. 7). See ch. vi. 1-8, Marks 
of J, No". 8. 

4. ib rnn to be ivroth (ver. 7). See ch. xviii., xix., Marks 
of J, No. 30. 

5. i"toi tfb "J3 which ought not to be done (ver. 7) ; as- 
signed besides to J (xxix. 26), but this is cut out of an E 
connection; in E (xx. 9) ; in P (Lev. iv. 2, 13, 22, 27; 
v. 17). 

6. 1515a in #TQ to find grace in the eyes of (ver. 11). 
See ch. vi. 1-8, Marks of J, No. 10. 

7. n*in ^sb with the edge of the sword (ver. 26) ; besides 



404 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

in J (Josh. viii. 24 bis) ; in E (Ex. xvii. 13 ; Num. xxi. 
24) ; in JE (Josh. vi. 21 ; xix. 47, in a P connection) ; in 
D (Josh. x. 28, 30, 32, 35, 37, 39; xi. 11, 12, 14) and sev- 
eral times in Deut. 

8. *]$y to trouble (ver. 30) ; besides in the Hexateuch 
only Josh. vi. 18 E ; vii. 25 bis JE. 

" Wrought folly in Israel " is claimed as a D phrase 
(Deut. xxii. 21). Knobel says : " The author here naively 
applies this later expression to patriarchal times, when 
there was as yet no people of Israel." The patriarch had 
already received the name of Israel, and he was the 
leader of a powerful clan, which subsequently developed 
into the nation. There is no inappropriateness in the 
great legislator employing here the legal phrase current 
in his own day. 

JACOB AT BETHEL, AND ISAAC'S DEATH (CH. XXXV.) 

The divine names afford no ground for the division of 
this chapter, since El and Elohim alone occur. The rea- 
son is evident. The prominence here given to the names 
Bethel (vs. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 15) and Israel (ver. 10), leads to 
the quadruple repetition of El (vs. 1, 3, 7, 11), with 
which Elohim is most naturally associated (see particu- 
larly vs. 7, 15, also vs. 1, 9, 10, 11, 13). Elohim is appro- 
priately used in ver. 5 to indicate that the terror was 
divinely inspired, and did not proceed from any human 
source. Eichhorn had no difficulty in admitting the 
unity of the chapter. Tuch did the same, only except- 
ing the last clause of both vs. 1 and 7, which speak of 
the flight from Esau, of which, on his hypothesis, the 
Elohist knew nothing. Ilgen 1 parcelled it between the 
two Elohists, and this is at present the prevalent fash- 

1 Ilgen's division is almost identical with that of Dillmann ; he gives 
to E vs. 1-8, 16a, c, 17, 18, 20-22 ; to P vs. 9-15, 16b, 19, 23-29. 



JACOB AT BETHEL (CH. XXXV.) 405 

ion. Dillmann gives vs. 1-8 to E (except ver. 5 E, ver. 
6a P), vs. 9-15 to P, vs. 16-22a to E, and vs. 22b-29 
to P. 

JACOB AT BETHEL 

Vs. 1-15 plainly form one continuous narrative. Jacob 
goes by divine direction to Bethel and builds an altar 
there, whereupon God appears to him and blesses him. 
According to the partition proposed above, however, E 
(vs. 1, 4, 7) speaks of God having appeared to Jacob in 
Bethel and answered him in his distress, plainly refer- 
ring to xxviii. 12 sqq. But as the critics divide that 
passage, E tells of the vision of a ladder with angels ; it 
is only J who tells of God appearing to Jacob and speak- 
ing with him. Hence Dillmann finds it necessary to as- 
sume that E has here meddled with the text and adapted 
it to J. In ver. 5 the danger of pursuit, from which they 
were protected by a terror divinely sent upon the cities 
round about, points to the deed of blood in ch. xxxiv., 
and to the apprehension which this awakened in Jacob 
(ver. 30). But as that was recorded by J, not by E, this 
verse is cut out of its connection and assigned by Hup- 
feld to J (in spite of Elohim), and by others to E. Yer. 
6a is given to P, because E calls the place Bethel (vs. 
1, 3). That, however, was the sacred name given to it 
by Jacob ; its popular name was Luz, and its introduc- 
tion here is with allusion to xxviii. 19. The added clause, 
" which is in the land of Canaan," is not a superfluous 
appendage due to P's diffuseness ; but like the same 
words in xxxiii. 18, it calls attention to the fact that 
Jacob, after his long absence, is now again in the land to 
which the Lord had promised to bring him (xxviii. 15). 
That promise, on which Jacob's vow to revisit Bethel 
was conditioned, was now fulfilled. Why E should find it 
necessary here to insert a clause from P in order to state 



406 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

so simple a fact as Jacob's arrival at the place, to which, 
according to E, he had been directed to go, is not very 
obvious. Nevertheless the consequence is that P speaks 
of Jacob's coming to Bethel, but E does not ; and 
" there " (ver. 7) has nothing to refer to. The burial of 
Deborah (ver. 8) is said to be abruptly introduced and 
out of connection with what precedes. But it only in- 
terrupts the narrative, -as the event itself interrupted the 
sacred transaction in the midst of which it occurred. 
Moreover, the mention of Bebekah's nurse in E is once 
more a reference to J (xxiv. 59), by whom alone she had 
been spoken of before, and that merely to prepare the 
way for what is here recorded. The question how she 
came to be with Jacob at this time cannot be answered 
for lack of information. The writer is not giving her 
biography, and we have no right to expect an account 
of all her movements. After Bebekah's death it was 
quite natural that she should go to be with Bebekah's 
favorite son. The "strange gods" in Jacob's family 
(vs. 2, 4) find their explanation in xxxi. 19, 30 sqq. E. 
The name El-bethel (ver. 7) is identical with that by 
which God announced himself to Jacob (xxxi. 13 E). 

P (ver. 9) speaks of God appearing to Jacob again, 
when he came out of Paddan-aram, with definite reference 
to his having appeared to him the first time on his way 
to Paddan-aram (ver. 1 E), as related neither by P nor 
by E, but by J (xxviii. 13). The word " again " is there- 
fore unceremoniously stricken from the text to make it 
correspond with the hypothesis. Beference is made 
(ver. 12) to God's giving the land to Isaac ; no such fact 
is recorded by P, only by J or B (xxvi. 3, 4). God ap- 
pears to Jacob (ver. 9), as in xvii. 1 P (cf. xii. 7 ; xviii. 
1 ; xxvi. 2, 24 J), speaks to him in condescending terms 
(vs. 10-12) and goes up from him (ver. 13), from which it 
is plain that a descent of the Lord, as in xi. 5, 7, is not 






JACOB AT BETHEL (CH. XXXV.) 407 

peculiar to J. The reimposition of the names " Israel " 
(ver. 10) and " Bethel " (ver. 15) is judged to be incredi- 
ble by the critics, and claimed as evidence of two discrep- 
ant accounts. But it gave no trouble to B, and need not 
to us. There are other like instances in the sacred narra- 
tive. It is quite as likely that the original writer thought 
such repetitions possible and reported them accordingly, 
as that the redactor could do so. That no explanation of 
Israel is here given is, as Dillmann confesses, because 
xxxii. 29 made it unnecessary, and so it is an implied ref- 
erence to that passage in E Dillm. (or J Well., Kuen.). 
Only his critical stand-point obliges him to assume that 
P must have given an explanation, which B has omitted, 
the only evidence of which is that the hypothesis requires 
it. In vs. 11, 12, God pronounces upon Jacob the identi- 
cal blessing granted to Abraham in terms corresponding 
with ch. xvii., thus fulfilling the desire of Isaac (xxviii. 
3, 4) on his behalf. In ver. 14 (P) Jacob sets up a pillar, 
which is esteemed a characteristic of E, as in ver. 20 E, 
and pours oil upon it, as xxviii. 18 E, and a drink-offer- 
ing, in evident contradiction to the critical notion that 
according to P offerings had no existence prior to the 
Mosaic period. Hence Kuenen (" Hexateuch," p. 327) 
thinks it necessary to attribute ver. 14 to B. 

The manifold references to P, J, and E, scattered 
throughout this closely connected paragraph (vs. 1-15), 
are not accounted for by the division proposed ; and it is 
impossible to make a division that will account for them. 
The common relation of this paragraph to all the docu- 
ments cannot be explained by tearing it to shreds to 
conform with the partition elsewhere made. That par- 
tition, which is irreconcilable with this paragraph, must 
be itself at fault in sundering what, as is here shown, be- 
longs together. 



408 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 



THE DEATH OF EACHEL 

The next paragraph (vs. 16-20) is tied to different 
documents in a like embarrassing manner. Ch. xlviii. 7 
(P) speaks of the death and burial of Rachel at Ephrath, 
in terms nearly identical with vs. 16, 19. Ch. xxix. 32- 
xxx. 24 (J and E) records the birth of eleven of Jacob's 
sons, and finds its complement in this account of the 
birth of Benjamin. This final paragraph, which com- 
pletes the number of his sons, is preparatory to the re- 
capitulation (vs. 22b-26 P), in which they are arranged 
according to their respective mothers, and in the order of 
their birth, in exact correspondence with the detailed 
narrative previously given. That the child now born is 
Eachel' s, agrees with xxx. 24b J. That she loses her 
life in giving him birth is an evident reminder of xxx. 1 
E. The birth scene recalls xxv. 24-26 ; xxxviii. 27 sqq. 
J. In ver. 18 the name is given both by the mother as 
in J and E (see ch. xxx.), and by the father as in P (see 
xvi. 15 ; xxi. 3). It is alleged that P could not have 
connected the birth of Benjamin with his mother's death 
at Ephrath, since this is in conflict with vs. 24, 26, P, 
where Jacob's twelve sons are said to have been born in 
Paddan-aram. But in like manner, it is said (xlvi. 15), 
that Beah bare thirty-three sons and daughters to Jacob 
in Paddan-aram, and (ver. 18) Zilpah bare unto Jacob 
sixteen. In Ex. i. 5, seventy souls are said to have come 
out of the loins of Jacob, including Jacob himself (cf. 
Gen. xlvi. 26, 27). 1 Cor. xv. 5 speaks of Christ being 
" seen of the twelve " after his resurrection, although 
Judas had gone to his own place. R had no difficulty in 
understanding that Jacob's sons could be spoken of in 
the general as born in Paddan-aram, though Benjamin's 
birth in Canaan had just been mentioned. Is R's inter- 






THE DEATH OF RACHEL (CH. XXXV.) 409 

pretation less rational than that of the critics ? May not 
the writer have meant it as the redactor understood it ? 

Dillinann further urges that E could not have men- 
tioned Rachel's death at this time, since that is in con- 
flict with xxxvii. 10 E. But instead of contrariety there 
is perfect accord. As the eleven stars denoted Joseph's 
brethren, Benjamin must have been one of them. Ra- 
chel's death is likewise implied, for had she been living, 
as well as Leah, there would have been two moons to 
make obeisance instead of one. 

The reference of this paragraph to R, who is supposed 
to have written it with reference to P, J, and E, is equiv- 
alent to a confession that it is an indivisible unit as it 
now stands, and that it was written by one cognizant of 
matter to be found in each of the documents ; by one, 
that is, who gave Genesis its present form, of which the 
so-called documents are component parts, a view which 
is quite consistent with their never having had a separate 
existence. 

There is a difficulty in respect to the location of Ra- 
chel's sepulchre. According to vs. 16, 19 ; xlviii. 7, it 
lay upon the road from Bethel, where "there was still 
some way to come to Ephrath " or Bethlehem ; this 
corresponds with its traditional site, a short distance 
north of Bethlehem. But according to 1 Sam. x. 2, Saul 
in returning to Gibeah from Samuel, whose home was in 
Ramah, passed by Rachel's sepulchre ; from which it 
might be inferred that it lay considerably further north. 
Thenius, Dillinann, and others cut the knot by rejecting 
the clause "the same is Bethlehem " (xxxv. 19 ; xlviii. 7), 
as an erroneous gloss, and assuming that there was a 
another Ephrath, not otherwise known, much nearer to 
Bethel. But the correctness of its identification with 
Bethlehem is confirmed by Ruth iv. 11 ; Mic. v. 1 (E. V., 
ver. 2). Delitzsch, in the fourth edition of his " Gene- 



410 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

sis," adhered to the traditional site and assumed that 
Samuel directed Saul to take " an unreasonably circuit- 
ous route " on his way homeward. In his last edition he 
conceives that variant traditions as to the place of Ba- 
chel's burial are represented in these passages. Kurtz l 
seeks a solution in the indefiniteness of the term irrtns 
some way, which is of doubtful meaning, and only occurs 
once besides (2 Kin. v. 19). He supposes it to mean 
quite a long distance, so that the place described might 
be remote from Bethlehem, and in the neighborhood of 
Eamah. 

Possibly, however, Dr. Bobinson uncovers the real 
source of the difficulty by suggesting that we do not 
know where it was that Saul met with Samuel. Eamah, 
the home of Samuel, is in his opinion not the Eamah of 
Benjamin, north of Jerusalem, and has not yet been cer- 
tainly identified. And he adds, 2 "After all, there is 
perhaps a question lying back of this whole discussion, 
viz., whether the city where Saul and the servant came 
to Samuel was his own city, Eamah ? The name of the 
city is nowhere given ; and the answer of the maidens 
(1 Sam. ix. 11, 12) would perhaps rather imply that 
Samuel had just arrived, possibly on one of his yearly 
circuits, in which he judged Israel in various cities (1 
Sam. vii. 15-17)." If now, in the absence of definite in- 
formation on the subject, it is permissible with Keil to 
conjecture that Saul found Samuel in some city south- 
west of Bethlehem, Eachel's sepulchre might easily be 
on his way back to Gibeah. Samuel's statement that he 
would " find two men by Eachel's sepulchre, in the bor- 
der of Benjamin, at Zelzah," need create no embarrass- 
ment, for Benjamin's southern boundary ran through the 
valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem to En-rogel (Josh. 

1 Grescliichte des Alten Bundes, i , p. 270. 

3 Biblical Researches, ii., p. 10 (Edition of 1856). 



THE DEATH OF EACHEL (CH. XXXV.) 411 

xviii. 16), about three miles from Bachel's sepulchre, 
which is sufficiently near to justify the form of expression 
used. 

If, however, Samuel was at Eamah, and this is the 
same with the Eamah north of Jerusalem, Kachel's sep- 
ulchre of 1 Sam. x. 2 cannot well be that of Genesis. 
But as the bones of Joseph were transported to the in- 
heritance of the tribes descended from him (Josh. xxiv. 
32), why may not the Benjamites have erected a ceno- 
taph in their territory in honor of the mother of their 
tribe ? 

The repetition of the word ^^ journeyed (xxxv. 21), 
marks this as a continuation of the narrative of vs. 5 and 
16 ; but the critics complete the patchwork of the chap- 
ter by giving ver. 22a to J, because of the reference to it 
in xlix. 4, and ver. 21 must necessarily go with it. And 
this though " Israel " in these verses is a plain allusion 
to ver. 10 P, or xxxii. 29 E (so Dillmann) ; and " the 
tower of Eder " was at Bethlehem, the objective point of 
vs. 16, 19, B or P. 

GROUNDS OF PARTITION IRRELEVANT 

While the entire chapter is thus closely linked together 
in all its parts, it is observable that the critical severance 
is based not upon the contents of the chapter, whether 
matter or diction, but upon its numerous points of con- 
nection with other passages, which the critics have seen 
fit to parcel among the so-called documents. It is an at- 
tempt to force the hypothesis through this chapter for 
reasons which lie wholly outside of itself. And it is 
still further observable that the critics have not suc- 
ceeded in adjusting this chapter into conformity with the 
partition elsewhere. In spite of the attempt to prevent 
it, its several sections are in repeated instances related 



412 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

to other documents than those to which the critics assign 
them. These intimate bonds of relationship with other 
passages accordingly constrain to precisely the opposite 
conclusion from that which has been claimed. They do 
not justify the reduction of the chapter to a series of 
fragments of diverse origin in spite of its manifest unity ; 
but this unity shows the falsity of that partition in other 
parts of Genesis which is irreconcilable with it. 

CONCLUSION OF THE SECTION 

Jacob's family is now complete, and he is settled in 
Canaan. His subordinate position as a member of the 
family of Isaac terminates here, and he is henceforth re- 
garded as the head of the chosen race, which is to bear 
his name, Israel. That division of the history entitled 
the Generations of Isaac is accordingly concluded at 
this point, and is followed, according to the usage of the 
book, first, by the divergent line, the Generations of 
Esau ; and then by the direct line, the Generations of 
Jacob. 

Isaac's death is mentioned at the close of this chapter, 
not because this is its exact chronological place, but in 
order to bring this section of the history to a close be- 
fore entering upon Jacob's family life in Canaan ; just 
as the death of Terah (xi. 32), and that of Abraham (xxv. 
8), are recorded in order to prepare the way for the his- 
tory of their successors. But as Terah survived the call 
of Abraham (xii. 1, 4), and even the birth of Isaac (xxi. 
5 ; cf . xi. 26), and as Abraham survived the birth of Ja- 
cob and Esau (xxv. 26 ; cf. ver. 7), so Isaac continued to 
live until Joseph had reached his thirtieth year, and was 
advanced to be the second ruler in Egypt. Jacob was 
one hundred and thirty years old when presented before 
Pharaoh (xlvii. 9), in the second year of the famine (xlv. 



THE DEATH OF ISAAC (CH. XXXV.) 413 

11). In the year preceding the first of plenty he was, 
therefore, one hundred and twenty, and Joseph was 
thirty (xli. 46) ; this was the year of Isaac's death (xxxv. 
28 ; xxv. 26). It thus appears that Jacob was ninety 
years old when Joseph was born ; he had then been with 
Laban fourteen years (xxx. 25 sqq. ; xxxi. 41). He was 
consequently seventy-six when he left home for Paddan- 
aram. Isaac was at that time one hundred and thirty- 
six, and was old and blind, and might well say that he 
" knew not the day of his death " (xxvii. 1, 2) ; but it is 
not said, as has sometimes been alleged, that he was on 
his deathbed and near his end. He lived forty-four 
years longer ; and there is no statement or implication 
in the text inconsistent with this. 

Dillmann infers from xxvi. 34, 35 ; xxvii. 46 ; and 
xxviii. 1-9, that Jacob could only have been between 
forty and fifty when he went to Paddan-aram. But the 
facts that Esau married at forty, that his Canaanitish 
wives gave great offence to Isaac and Eebekah, and that 
this is made a reason for Jacob's going elsewhere for a 
wife, do not warrant a conclusion as to Jacob's age at 
variance with definite data elsewhere supplied. Esau 
had been married thirty-five years when Jacob left home. 
Judged by the present standard of human life, Jacob's 
marriage took place at a very advanced age. But this 
must be considered in connection with patriarchal lon- 
gevity. Jacob reached the age of one hundred and 
forty-seven (xlvii. 28) ; Isaac, one hundred and eighty 
(xxxv. 28) ; Abraham, one hundred and seventy-five (xxv. 
7). Abraham was eighty-six years old when his first son 
Ishmael was born (xvi. 16), and one hundred at the birth 
of Isaac (xxi. 5). 

No argument for critical partition is drawn by Dill- 
mann from the diction of this chapter. The words com- 
monly classed as belonging to P, in vs. 11, 12, are bor- 



414 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC 

rowed from ch. xvii., where they have already been 
considered ; and those of vs. 28, 29, are identical with 
xxv. 7, 8. It should be noted that for ^pbnrn Wlfcn 
DD^'Voto purify yourselves and change your garments (ver. 
2), Ex. xix. 10 substitutes Dn'bttiE IDSp 1 ! DFltWpl sanctify 
them and let them wash their garments, though both are 
referred to E. Also in the phrase come forth from the 
loins, ver. 11 has D?sbn, while xlvi. 26 ; Ex. i. 5, have 
■p^>, though all are referred to P. The same writer may 
thus, by the confession of the critics, use different ex- 
pressions for the same idea. Accordingly, such differ- 
ences are not always nor necessarily an indication of dis- 
tinct documents. 



IX 

THE GENEKATIONS OF ESAU (CH. XXXVI. ; XXXVII. 1) 

OPINIONS OF CRITICS 

Eichhorn * attributed ch. xxxvi. to an independent 
source, different from both P and J, and sought thus to 
account for its divergence from other passages in Gene- 
sis, particularly in certain proper names; he did not, 
however, dispute its unity. 

Vater 2 considered it a mass of fragments. He says : 
" No reader of ch. xxxvi. can fail to see that it is made 
up of many pieces. There are six titles in it, viz., vs. 1, 
9, 15, 20, 31, 40. With each of the first three titles 
there begins a special family-tree of Esau, and the repe- 
tition of all the identical names strikes the eye at once. 
The same concluding words occur in ver. 19 as those 
with which another fragment closes (ver. 8). The piece 
that begins with ver. 31, as well as that which begins 
with ver. 40, is a list of the kings of Edom ; and that 
from ver. 31 is expressly a list of the kings who reigned 
in the land of Edom before the Israelites had a king." 

After the masterly refutation of Vater by F. H. 
Ranke, 3 it became customary to refer the entire chapter 
to P. Thus Knobel : " The Horite-Edomite tribal list, 
though not preserved altogether unaltered (see ver. 2), is 
a work of the Elohist, who composed all the regularly 

1 Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 4th Edition, iii., p. 135. 

a Commentar uber den Pentateuch, iii., p. 435. 

8 Untersuchungen uber den Pentateuch, i., pp. 243 sqq. 



416 THE GENERATIONS OF ESAU 

drawn up genealogical tables of Genesis, and could not 
omit the Edomites, since they stood nearer to the Israel- 
ites than the other peoples descended from Terah the 
father of Abraham." 

The assault upon the unity of the chapter was, how- 
ever, renewed by Hupfeld, 1 who declared that " its het- 
erogeneous genealogical lists were only held together by 
a geographical conception, their relation to the land of 
Edom and its inhabitants ; " that " the primitive inhab- 
itants of the country, the Horites, and the earliest Eclom- 
ite kings, do not stand in the remotest relation to the 
theocratic history of the patriarchs, as traced by P ; and 
that even the lines of descent from Esau cannot be from 
P in their present form." He ascribed to P only vs. 1- 
8 ; and even here he maintained that the last clause in 
both ver. 1 and ver. 8 is a later gloss, and that the names 
of Esau's wives (vs. 2, 3) have been corrupted into con- 
formity with the other sources, from which the rest of the 
chapter was taken by J or R. Kayser assigns vs. 1-8 to 
P, the rest to J. Wellhausen attributes vs. 6-8, 40-43 
to P ; vs. 31-39 are preserved unaltered from JE, and 
the remainder is derived from other sources, principally 
JE, and remodelled after the style of P. Schrader gives 
the whole chapter to P, except vs. 40-43. Kuenen 2 
adopts the division of Wellhausen, but adds : " The re- 
sult is not quite satisfactory, for one would have expected 
more ample information concerning the Edomites than is 
contained in vs. 40-43. Perhaps a list of Esau's descend- 
ants, which was given at this point in P, has been super- 
seded by vs. 1-5, 9-19." So that after removing part of 
the chapter, the critics feel the need of it or its equiva- 
lent. Dillmann, followed by Delitzsch and Yatke, re- 
gards the whole chapter as belonging to P, though modi- 
fied in some particulars by R. 

1 Quellen, p. 61. 2 Hexateuch, p. 68. 



ESAU'S DESCENDANTS (CH. XXXVI.) 417 

It would appear, therefore, that here is another in- 
stance in which the critics' affirmation does not hold 
good, that " whatever difficulty may attend the separation 
of J and E, the writer P, as opposed to both of them, is 
always distinct and decisive." 

UNITY OF THE CHAPTER 

As no name of God occurs in this chapter, no plea for 
division can arise from this quarter. We have the au- 
thority of Dillmann for saying that the style is uniform 
throughout, and there is nothing in the language that 
militates against the unity of the chapter. In his second 
edition he says expressly : " The fine adjustment and ar- 
rangement of the piece speaks for the unity of the com- 
position and for P. This piece is rather a model of 
the way and manner in which he was accustomed to 
present the material that lay before him." To the ob- 
jections that the Horites (vs. 20 sqq.), and the kings of 
Edom (vs. 31 sqq.), do not fall within the author's plan 
he very properly attributes no weight whatever. The 
shceme upon which the book of Genesis is constructed 
made it essential that an account should be given of the 
descendants of Esau ; and the greater nearness of his re- 
lation to Jacob made it natural that a larger space 
should be given to them than to the descendants of Ish- 
mael and of Keturah (ch. xxv.) : It had been revealed to 
Rebekah that two nations would spring from her twin 
children (xxv. 23). This must be verified in the case of 
Esau as well as of Jacob. If the princes sprung from 
Ishmael were enumerated, why not the chiefs and kings 
of the race of Esau ? The Horites were the primitive in- 
habitants of Mount Seir. These were subjugated and in 
part destroyed by Esau and his descendants (Deut. ii. 
12, 22), who amalgamated with the remnant, as appears 
27 



418 THE GENERATIONS OF ESAU 

from the chapter before us (ver. 2 cf. ver. 24, ver. 12 cf. 
ver. 22). In order to a correct and comprehensive view 
of the Edomites it was consequently necessary to include 
the Horites, as is here done. 

The materials embraced in the chapter are, therefore, 
the proper ones to be introduced in this place. They 
are, in addition, clearly and systematically arranged. 
There is first a statement of Esau's immediate family (vs. 
1-5), which is summed up (ver. 5b) in the words : " These 
are the sons of Esau, which were born unto him in the 
land of Canaan," precisely corresponding to the summary 
of Jacob's family (xxxv. 26b) : " These are the sons of 
Jacob, which were born to him in Paddan-aram." This 
naturally leads to the mention of Esau's removal from 
Canaan to Mount Seir (vs. 6-8). The paragraph relating 
to his immediate family (vs. 1-8) is preliminary to the 
section which follows concerning the nation descended 
from him. This is indicated by the title prefixed to 
them respectively (ver. 1) : " These are the generations 
of Esau ; the same is Edom," where, as in ver. 8b, Edom 
is his personal name (cf. xxv. 30) ; but in ver. 9 : " These 
are the generations of Esau, the father of Edom, in 
Mount Seir," as in ver. 43b, Edom is the national name. 
In tracing the unfolding of Esau's family to a nation pre- 
cisely the same method is pursued as in the like develop- 
ment of Jacob's family in ch. xlvi., whose sons give name 
to the tribes, and their sons to the tribal divisions or fam- 
ilies (cf. Num. xxvi. 5 sqq.). So here the sons are again 
named, no longer as individuals as in vs. 4, 5, but as 
progenitors of the nation, and their sons are given (vs. 
10-14), who, it is immediately added, were chieftains of 
their respective clans (vs. 15-19). The same method is 
next followed with the Horites by first naming the sons 
or principal divisions, then their sons or the subdivisions, 
the national purport of the list being again indicated by 



ESAU'S DESCENDANTS (CH. XXXVI.) 419 

enumerating the sons as chieftains of their respective 
clans (vs. 20-30). Since these various clans were com- 
bined into one national organization, with a monarch at 
its head, a list is next given of the kings who had reigned 
in the land of Edom (vs. 31-39). And to this is added 
finally (vs. 40-43) a list of those who presided over the 
various districts or territorial divisions of the country, 
" the chiefs of Edom, according to their habitations in 
the land of their possession," as distinguished from the 
families or genealogical divisions before given (vs. 15-19). 
The lack of correspondence between the names in these 
two divisions, made on an entirely different principle, in- 
volves no contradiction, as is assumed by Wellhausen 
and Schrader, and is the basis of their disintegrating 
analysis, in which they reach such opposite conclusions. 
And the dislocations and erasures proposed by Brus- 
ton 1 are not only arbitrary, but mar the symmetry of the 
chapter as now exhibited. The omission of ver. 1, so as 
to attach vs. 2-8 to the previous section of the history, 
the Generations of Isaac, disregards the fact that it had 
been brought to a formal close by the death and burial 
of Isaac (xxxv. 29 ; cf. xxv. 8-10, ix. 29), and sunders the 
record of Esau's family from that of the nation sprung 
from him, both of which properly belong to the Genera- 
tions of Esau. And the transfer of xxxvii. 1, so as imme- 
diately to follow xxxvi. 8, needlessly interrupts the state- 
ments concerning Esau ; the verse is in its proper place 
after those statements are concluded, and just preceding 
the next section (xxxvii. 2 sqq.), to which it is prepara- 
tory. Nor are vs. 20-28 to be dropped on the plea that 
vs. 20, 21 are a doublet to vs. 29, 30 ; they sustain pre- 
cisely the same relation to one another as vs. 15-18 to vs. 
10-14, a relation not of mutual exclusion but of co-exist- 
ence, as indicated in ver. 19. And the correspondence of 

i As quoted by Dillmann. 



420 THE GENERATIONS OF ESAU 

vs. 24, 25 to ver. 2, and of ver. 22 to ver. 12, instead of 
discrediting the paragraph in which they are found, tends 
to confirm its right to a place in this chapter. 

The unity and the self-consistency of the chapter have 
now been sufficiently vindicated. We are not concerned 
to establish its correspondence with P or any one of the 
so-called documents, which exist only in the fancy of the 
critics. And when Wellhausen objects that a remark in- 
terjected in the midst of a genealogy like that in ver. 24, 
" this is Anah who found the hot springs in the wilder- 
ness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father," is without 
analogy in P, though frequent in JE, and Dillmann con- 
tends, on the other hand, that the peculiar style of P runs 
through the entire chapter ; or when Wellhausen affirms 
that the allusion to kings in Israel (ver. 31) cannot pos- 
sibly be from P, and Dillmann maintains, per contra, that 
P and P alone of all the documents makes such allusions, 
we must leave the critics to settle these domestic differ- 
ences between themselves. It only remains for us to 
consider the alleged discrepancies between this chapter 
and other parts of Genesis, and alleged anachronisms 
which are supposed to be inconsistent with the author- 
ship of Moses. 

NO DISCREPANCIES 

It is claimed that xxxvi. 2, 3 conflicts with xxvi. 34, 
xxviii. 9, in respect to the wives of Esau. In the opin- 
ion of Wellhausen 1 "this is the most open contradiction 
in the whole of Genesis ; " and he adds, " either the en- 
tire literary criticism of the biblical historical books is 
baseless and nugatory, or these passages are from different 
sources." We thank him for the word. If the divisive 
criticism stakes its all on finding a discrepancy here, its 
prospects are not very brilliant. 

1 Composition des Hexateuchs, p. 49. 



ESAU'S DESCENDANTS (CH. XXXVI.) 421 

Esau's wives, according to chs. xxvi., xxviii., were Ju- 
dith, the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, Basemath, the 
daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Mahalath, the daughter 
of Ishmael and the sister of Nebaioth. According to ch. 
xxxvi., they were Adah, the daughter of Elon the Hittite, 
Aholibamah, the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zib- 
eon the Hivite, and Basemath, Ishinaei's daughter, sister 
of Nebaioth. 

There is a difference here in the names of the women 
and of their fathers. Nevertheless, Noldeke finds no 
difficulty in referring all to P, and assuming that he de- 
rived his materials from discrepant authorities. And it 
is not easy to see why the original author, be he P or 
who he may, may not have done this as well as R. But 
the discrepancy is, after all, imaginary. It is quite in- 
supposable that B> or P, or any sensible writer, could 
have inserted without comment or explanation the bald 
contradiction here alleged. That the passages in ques- 
tion are not unrelated is plain from the back reference 
in xxxvi. 2a, " Esau took his wives of the daughters of 
Canaan," to xxviii. 1, 8 ; and that they are not altogether 
at variance is apparent from the fact that according to 
both statements Esau had three wives ; two were Canaan- 
ites, one of these being the daughter of Elon the Hittite, 
and the third was a daughter of Ishmael and sister of 
Nebaioth. The other Canaanitess is said (xxvi. 34) to 
have been the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and (xxxvi. 
2) the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon the Hi- 
vite. Ranke understands this to mean that Beeri was 
her father and Anah her mother, so that there is no vari- 
ance between the statements, which are mutually supple- 
mentary, as when Dinah is called (xxxiv. 1) the daughter 
of Leah, and (ver. 3) the daughter of Jacob. But this is 
incorrect, since Anah, the parent of Aholibamah, was the 
son, and not the daughter, of Zibeon (xxxvi. 24, 25). Two 



422 THE GENERATIONS OF ESAU 

solutions here offer themselves of the apparent discrep- 
ancy. It is exceedingly probable that Beeri was another 
name of Anah, given to him, as Hengstenberg suggests, 
in consequence of his discovery of warm springs (ver. 24) 
(Beer, spring ; Beeri, spring-man). Or Beeri may have 
been the son of Anah ; Aholibamah is said (ver. 2) to be 
the daughter of Anah and also the daughter of Zibeon, 
as Basemath (ver. 3) is the daughter of Ishmael and the 
sister of Nebaioth) ; here it is plain that " daughter " in 
the second clause cannot be taken in the strict sense of 
an immediate offspring, but must have the wider mean- 
ing of descendant (cf. also ver. 39). Why not in the 
preceding clause likewise ? Why may she not have been 
the daughter of Beeri, the granddaughter of Anah, and 
the great-granddaughter of Zibeon (cf. Matt. i. 1, and 
compare Ezra v. 1 with Zech. i. 1) ? the writer preferring 
to link her name in this genealogy with her distinguished 
ancestors rather than with her own father, who may have 
been of less note. We may not have the data for deter- 
mining with certainty which is the true solution. But 
so long as any reasonable solution can be shown to exist, 
the difficulty cannot be pronounced insoluble. 

And as her parentage is thus readily explicable, so are 
the seemingly variant statements respecting her nation- 
ality. That she is said (xxvi. 34) to be of Hittite and 
(xxxvi. 2) of Hivite descent is not more strange than that 
Zibeon is called a Hivite (ver. 2) and a Horite (ver. 20). 
The critics commonly insist that the former is a textual 
error, and that Hivite should here be changed to Horite, 
which involves only a slight alteration in a single letter 
(^1H to vm). Then if (ver. 2) Esau's wife can be a daugh- 
ter of Canaan, and at the same time descended from a 
Horite, what is there in her being a Hittite to conflict 
with her Horite descent ? The fact is that the names of 
the Canaanitish tribes are not always used with rigorous 



ESAU'S DESCENDANTS (CH. XXXVI.) 423 

precision. Hittite (Josh. i. 4), like Canaanite and Amor- 
ite (Gen. xv. 16), may be used in a narrower or a wider 
sense, either of the particular tribe so designated or of 
the population of Palestine generally. And the term 
Horite is not properly indicative of race or descent, but 
of a particular style of habitation ; it is equivalent to 
cave-dweller. There is no evidence that the Horites 
might not be allied in whole or in part to the Hivites ; 
and Hittite might be applied in a general sense to a Hi- 
vite. 1 

The only remaining ground of objection is that Esau's 
wives bear different names in the two passages. If but 
one was changed, it might be thought an error of tran- 
scription. But as all three are altered, it must be due 
to some common cause. Nothing, however, is more 
common than this duplication of names (cf. Gen. xvii. 5, 
15 ; xxv. 30 ; xxxv. 10, 18 ; xli. 45 ; Ex. ii. 18, cf. iii. 1 ; 
Num. xiii. 16 ; Judg. vii. 1 ; 2 Kin. xxiii. 34 ; xxiv. 17 ; 
Dan. i. 7, etc.), especially at some important crisis or 
change of life. So Tabitha was also called Dorcas (Acts 
ix. 36), and Peter Cephas, and Thomas Didymus, and 
Joses Barnabas, and Saul Paul. If a former emperor of 
the French were called Napoleon on one page and Buo- 
naparte on another, or a late prime minister of England 
were spoken of at one time as Disraeli and at another as 
Beaconsfield, it would create no surprise. Harmer 2 ob- 
serves that " the Eastern people are oftentimes known by 
several names ; this might arise from their having more 
names than one given them at first ; or it might arise 
from their assuming a new and different name upon par- 
ticular occurrences in life. This last is most probable, 
since such a custom continues in the East to this day ; 

1 In like manner Amorite is used (xlviii. 22) in a general sense of the 
Hivites (xxxiv. 2). 

2 Observations on Divers Passages of Scripture, vol. ii., p. 501. 



424 THE GENERATIONS OF ESAU 

and it evidently was sometimes done anciently." And 
he cites in the same connection the following from Sir 
John Chardin : " The reason why the Israelites and 
other Eastern people are called by different names is be- 
cause they frequently change them, as they change in 
point of age, condition, or religion. This custom has con- 
tinued to our times in the East, and is generally prac- 
tised upon changing religions ; and it is pretty common 
upon changing condition. The Persians have preserved 
this custom more than any other nation. I have seen 
many governors of provinces among them assume new 
names with their new dignity. But the example of the 
reigning king of Persia (he began his reign in 1667, and 
died in 1694) is more remarkable : the first years of the 
reign of this prince having been unhappy, on account of 
wars and famine in many provinces, his counsellors per- 
suaded him that the name he had till then borne was 
fatal, and that the fortune of the empire would not be 
changed till he changed that name. This was done ; the 
prince was crowned again under the name of Soliman ; 
all the seals, all the coins, that had the name of Sefi were 
broken, the same as if the king had been dead, and an- 
other had taken possession. The women more frequently 
change their names than the men. . . . Women that 
marry again, or let themselves out anew, and slaves, 
commonly alter their names upon these changes." Esau's 
wives at their marriage left their own tribes to become 
the heads of a new race ; is it strange that they should 
adopt new names ? 

Another alleged inconsistency relates to the separation 
of Esau and Jacob. According to xxxii. 4 (E. V., ver. 3) 
Esau was already in Seir before Jacob's return from Pad- 
dan-aram. But xxxvi. 6, 7 states that he removed from 
Canaan from the face of Jacob, because there was not 
room for both of them to dwell together. There is no 



ESAU's DESCENDANTS (OH. XXXVI.) 425 

real discrepancy here, however. Esau with a band of 
men had a provisional residence in Mount Seir before 
Jacob's return home ; but it is nowhere said that he had 
entirely abandoned Canaan and removed his family and 
effects from it. Though he had fixed his head-quarters 
for a season in Seir, he had no disposition to yield 
Canaan or to surrender his right to the paternal inherit- 
ance to Jacob, who had defrauded him of his father's 
blessing. Hence he came out with an armed force to 
obstruct his return to the land of his fathers. It was 
only after Jacob's fervent supplication (xxxii. 10 sqq., E. 
V., vs. 9 sqq.), and his importunate wrestling for a bless- 
ing on the bank of the Jabbok (vs. 25 sqq.), that Esau's 
deadly hate (xxvii. 41) was by divine influence changed 
to fraternal love (xxxiii. 4). He thenceforth abandoned 
his claim to the possession of Canaan, and peaceably 
withdrew with all that he had from the land. He re- 
turned again at the interment of his father (xxxv. 29), as 
Ishmael had done at the burying of Abraham (xxv. 9) ; 
and then the final separation of the brothers took place. 

NO ANACHRONISM 

An alleged anachronism yet remains to be considered. 
It is confidently affirmed that Moses could not possibly 
have written vs. 31-39. Verse 31 reads, " And these are 
the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there 
reigned any king over the children of Israel." 

The first impression upon a cursory reading of this 
verse might naturally be that it was written after the es- 
tablishment of the monarchy in Israel. Wellhausen con- 
tends that vs. 31-39 could not possibly have been writ- 
ten by P, " since this document keeps much too strictly 
to its archaistic stand-point for us to attribute to it the 
unconcealed reference to the period of the Israelitish 



426 THE GENERATIONS OF ESAU 

kings in ver. 31." We so far agree with him as to think 
it incredible that the writer of the Pentatench should in 
this one instance have departed so far from the Mosaic 
stand-point, which he elsewhere steadfastly maintains 
throughout, as to have introduced here a passage which 
must be dated as late as the time of Saul or David. And 
in fact a careful examination of the passage reveals sev- 
eral particulars calculated to modify the first cursory 
impression. Eight kings of Edom are named in these 
verses who are nowhere else mentioned in the history ; 
and we have no data for determining just when they 
reigned. No king is succeeded by his own son. It 
would seem, therefore, to have been an elective, not an 
hereditary, monarchy. The death of the first seven kings 
is mentioned, but not that of the eighth, whence it is 
probable that he was still reigning when this passage 
was written. This probability is enhanced by the con- 
sideration that the writer seems to be better acquainted 
with the domestic relations of this king than of his pre- 
decessors ; at least he mentions the name and lineage of 
his wife, which is not done in the case of any other. 

There was a kingdom in Edom in the time of David (1 
Kin. xi. 14-17), and reference is made to Hadad " of the 
king's seed in Edom." He cannot be identified with 
Hadad (ver. 36), or with Hadar (ver. 39) of the passage 
before us, as he seems never to have reached the throne ; 
or if he did, it must have been after the beginning of Sol- 
omon's reign, so that he was not one who reigned before 
there was any king in Israel. Moreover, the expression 
used shows that the succession to the throne was then 
hereditary. The kingdom consequently is not that which 
is described in the verses now under discussion ; it was 
on a different basis. 

There was also a king in Edom in the time of Moses 
(Num. xx. 14 ; cf. Judg. xi. 17), as well as in the kindred 



ESAU'S DESCENDANTS (CH. XXXVI.) 427 

nations of Moab (Num. xxii. 4), Midian (xxxi. 8), and 
Amalek (xxiv. 7 ; cf. 1 Sam. xv. 20). We read also at 
that time of dukes in Edom (Ex. xv. 15), showing that the 
kingdom was superinduced upon and coexisted with the 
dukedoms that are likewise spoken of in Gen. xxxvi. ; 
this is a coincidence worth noting. From the death of 
Moses to the choice of Saul as king were three hundred 
and fifty-seven years (1 Kin. vi. 1 ; 2 Sam. v. 4 ; Acts 
xiii. 21 ; Num. xiv. 33). Now, even supposing the king- 
in the Mosaic age to have been the first that ruled in 
Edom, we must assign to each of his successors a reign 
of fifty-one years to fill up the interval to the time of 
Saul, which is quite insupposable ; and the more so as 
elective monarchs would in all probability be chosen in 
mature age, and their reigns be on the average briefer in 
consequence. This list of kings does not, therefore, ex- 
tend to the reign of Saul. It cannot, consequently, have 
been written after the establishment of the kingdom in 
Israel, and intended to enumerate all the kings that had 
reigned in Edom up to that time. 

Furthermore, the fourth of these kings, it is said (ver. 
35), " smote Midian in the field of Moab." Midian was 
in alliance with Moab in the time of Moses (Num. xxii. 
4, 7) ; we are not informed that they were so subse- 
quently. Israel occupied the plains of Moab before 
crossing the Jordan (Num. xxxi. 12), and were thence- 
forward adjacent to its territory. This event was in all 
probability pre-Mosaic. 

Edom was so powerful and warlike a people in the 
Mosaic age that Israel did not venture to force a passage 
through their territory (Num. xx. 20, 21). This seems to 
imply that the kingdom had not been recently estab- 
lished. The same thing may be inferred from the men- 
tion of " the king's highway " (xx. 17). 

These various considerations conspire to make it ex- 



428 THE GENERATIONS OP ESAU 

tremely probable that several of these kings, at least, 
were pre-Mosaic ; why not all ? Why may not the last 
of the series be the one with whom Moses had dealings, 
and this be the explanation of the fact that the series is 
carried no further ? Esau's final settlement in Seir took 
place before the death of Isaac. And Isaac died ten 
years before Jacob went down to Egypt (Gen. xxxv. 28 ; 
xxv. 26 ; xlvii. 9), and hence four hundred and forty 
years before the exodus of the children of Israel (Ex. xii. 
41), or four hundred and eighty before the death of 
Moses. This affords ample time for the establishment 
of the kingdom in Edom, and the reign of eight kings. 
There is absolutely no reason in the nature of the case, 
or in any known fact, for affirming that any one of these 
kings was post-Mosaic. 

But could Moses have used the expressions in ver. 
31 ? l Why not ? It had been explicitly promised to 
Abraham (xvii. 6) and to Jacob (xxxv. 11) that kings 
should arise from their seed. Balaam foretells the 
exalted dignity of the kingdom in Israel (Num. xxiv. 7). 
Moses anticipates that when the people were settled in 
Canaan they would wish to set a king over them like all 
the nations around them ; and though he did not enjoin 
the establishment of a kingdom, he gave regulations re- 
specting it (Deut. xvii. 14 sqq.). That was the common 
usage of the nations. It was the prevalent conception of 
a well-ordered and properly administered government. 
Now Jacob inherited the blessing, and Esau did not. It 
had been foretold that Esau, the elder, should serve Jacob, 

1 Astruc urges substantially the same arguments that are presented 
above to prove that the kings of Edom here spoken of were pre-Mosaic, 
but he supposes that the king in Israel referred to was God, who be- 
came their king by formal covenant with them at Sinai (Ex. xix.), and 
is so called Deut. xxxiii. 5 (cf . Judg. viii. 22, 23 ; 1 Sam. viii. 7, xii. 
12) ; or else Moses or Joshua, who, though they are not called kings, 
were yet invested with supreme authority under God himself. 



ESAu's DESCENDANTS (OH. XXXVI.) 429 

the younger ; that the people descended from the latter 
should be stronger than the people descended from the 
former (xxv. 23) ; that Jacob should be lord over Esau 
(xxvii. 29). Yet Esau had been a compact, thoroughly 
organized kingdom for eight successive reigns, while Is- 
rael had just escaped from bondage, had attained to no 
such organization, had not yet had a single king. How 
could Moses fail to note so remarkable an occurrence ? 
And why was it not perfectly natural for him to have 
made precisely the statement which we here find ? 

Dillmann says that if the last of these kings was a 
contemporary of Moses, the writer could not have said, 
" These are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, 
before there reigned any king over the children of Is- 
rael ; " he could only have said, " before the children of 
Israel went up out of Egypt," or " before they conquered 
Canaan." This is of weight only against Dillmann's own 
position. If this line of kiugs simply extended to Moses's 
time, as we have seen that there is every reason to be- 
lieve, no post-Mosaic writer, and especially no one living 
in or after the time of Saul, could have made the reign 
of kings in Israel the terminus ad quern. No one but 
Moses himself, or a writer in the Mosaic age, contrasting 
the facts thus far developed in the line of Esau and Ja- 
cob with what had been predicted respecting them, could 
have used the language here employed. Instead of in- 
dicating an anachronism, the form of expression thus 
points directly to Moses as its author. 

While the critics disagree respecting the authorship of 
this chapter in general, they are unanimous in assigning 
vs. 6-8 to P, and in claiming that the characteristic ex- 
pressions of those verses, which are the ones commonly 
used of patriarchal migrations, are those of P. How lit- 
tle reason they have for this has already been shown un- 
der ch. xii. 4b, 5, Marks of P (3), No. 2 and 5. 



X 

THE GENEEATIONS OF JACOB (XXXVII. 2-L.) 

The first thirty-six chapters of Genesis have now been 
examined, and no justification has yet been found for the 
critical hypothesis that the book is compounded from 
pre-existing documents. We proceed to inquire whether 
this hypothesis has any better support in the next and 
only remaining section of this book. 

THE UNITY OF PLAN 

The divisive hypothesis encounters here in full meas- 
ure the same insuperable difficulty which meets it 
throughout the book of Genesis, and particularly in the 
life of Abraham, and the early history of Jacob. The 
unity of plan and purpose which pervades the whole, so 
that every constituent part has its place and its function, 
and nothing can be severed from it without evident mu- 
tilation, positively forbids its being rent asunder in the 
manner proposed by the critics. If ever a literary prod- 
uct bore upon its face the evidence of its oneness, this 
is true of the exquisite and touching story of Joseph, 
which is told with such admirable simplicity and a pathos 
that is unsurpassed, all the incidents being grouped with 
the most telling effect, until in the supreme crisis the 
final disclosure is made. No such high work of art was 
ever produced by piecing together selected fragments of 
diverse origin. 

The critics tell us that the apparent unity is due to 



THE UNITY OF PLAN (CH. XXXVII. 2-L.) 431 

the skill of the redactor. But the suggestion is alto- 
gether impracticable. A writer who gathers his mate- 
rials from various sources may elaborate them in his own 
mind, and so give unity to his composition. But a re- 
dactor who limits himself to piecing together extracts 
culled from different works by distinct authors, varying 
in conceptions, method, and design, can by no possibility 
produce anything but patchwork, which will betray itself 
by evident seams, mutilated figures, and want of harmony 
in the pattern. No such incongruities can be detected 
in the section before us by the most searching examina- 
tion. All that the critics affect to discover vanish upon 
a fair and candid inspection. 

Moreover, the story of Joseph, complete as it is in it- 
self, is but one link in a uniform and connected chain, 
and is of the same general pattern with those that pre- 
cede it. With striking individual diversities, both of 
character and experience, the lives of the several patri- 
archs are, nevertheless, cast in the same general mould. 
Divine revelations are made to Joseph at the outset, fore- 
casting his future (xxxvii. 5 sqq.), as to Abraham (xii. 1 
sqq.), and to Jacob (xxviii. 11 sqq.). Each was sent away 
from his paternal home and subjected to a series of trials, 
issuing both in discipline of character and in ultimate 
prosperity and exaltation. And the story of Joseph fits 
precisely into its place in the general scheme, which it is 
the purpose of Genesis to trace, by which God was pre- 
paring and training a people for himself. By a series of 
marvellous providences, as the writer does not fail to 
point out (xlv. 5, 7 ; 1. 20), the chosen seed was preserved 
from extinction and located within the great empire of 
Egypt, as had been already foreshown to Abraham 
(xv. 13 sqq.), that they might unfold into a nation ready, 
when the proper time should arrive, to be transplanted 
into Canaan. 



432 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

These broad and general features, in which the saro£ 
constructive mind is discernible throughout, are lost 
sight of by critics who occupy themselves with petty de- 
tails, spying out doublets in every emphatic repetition or 
in the similar features of distinct events, finding occa- 
sions of offence in every transition or digression, however 
natural and appropriate, and creating variance by setting 
separate parts of the same transaction in antagonism, as 
though each were exclusive of the other, when in fact 
they belong together and are perfectly consistent ; or by 
dislocating phrases and paragraphs from their true con- 
nection and imposing upon them senses foreign to their 
obvious intent. These artifices are perpetually resorted 
to by the critics, and constitute, in fact, their stock argu- 
ments, just because they refuse to apprehend the author's 
plan, and to judge of the fitness of every particular from 
his point of view, but insist instead upon estimating 
everything from some self -devised standard of their own. 

Yater, to whom the Pentateuch was a collection of 
heterogeneous fragments, and who was ready to go to 
any length in the work of disintegration, nevertheless 
says 1 that the history of Joseph is " a connected whole, to 
rend it asunder would be to do violence to the narrative." 
And Tuch, who finds a double narrative throughout the 
rest of Genesis, declares that it is impossible to do so 
here. " Several wrong courses have been ventured upon," 
he says, 2 " in respect to the narrator of the life of Joseph. 
Some relying upon insecure or misunderstood criteria 
have sought to extort two divergent accounts. Others 
have held that the documents have been so worked over 
that it is impracticable to separate them with any degree 
of certainty. But we must insist upon the close connec- 
tion of the whole recital, in which one thing carries an- 

1 Commentar iiber den Pentateuch, i. , p. 290 ; iii. , p. 435. 
J Commentar iiber die Genesis, 2d edit., p. 417. 



THE UNITY OF PLAN (CH. XXXVII. 2-L.) 433 

other along with it, and recognize in that which is con- 
tinuously written the work of one author." And he adds l 
respecting ch. xxxvii. : " This section in particular has 
been remarkably maltreated by the divisive document 
and redactor hypotheses of Ilgen and Gramberg without 
bringing forth anything but an arbitrary piece of mosaic 
work, which is shattered by the inner consistency and 
connection of the passage itself." The posthumous edi- 
tor of Tuch's " Commentary " interposes the caveat that 
" since Hupfeld and Boehmer the unity of the history 
of Joseph can no longer be maintained." But the fact 
is that no inconsistencies have since been pretended in 
this narrative which were not already pointed out by 
Ilgen and Gramberg. Whether the later attempts to es- 
tablish duplicate accounts have been more successful 
than those which Tuch so pointedly condemns, we shall 
inquire presently. 

The urgent motive which impels the most recent crit- 
ics to split the history of Joseph asunder at all hazards 
is thus frankly stated by Wellhausen : 2 a The principal 
source for this last section of Genesis is JE. It is to be 
presumed that this work is here as elsewhere com- 
pounded of J and E. Our previous results urge to this 
conclusion, and would be seriously shaken if this were 
not demonstrable. I hold, therefore, that the attempt 
'to dismember the flowing narrative of Joseph into 
sources ' is not a failure, 3 but is as necessary as the de- 
composition of Genesis in general." 

1 Commentar iiber die Genesis, 2d edit., p. 424. 

2 Composition des Hexateuclis, p. 52. 

3 The allusion is to Noldeke (TIntersuchungen, p. 32), who says "the 
attempt to dismember this flowing narrative into sources is a veritable 
failure." 



434 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 



LACK OF CONTINUITY IN THE DOCUMENTS 

If distinct documents have been combined in this 
portion of Genesis, the critical analysis which disen- 
tangles them and restores each to its original separate- 
ness might be expected to bring forth orderly narratives, 
purged of interpolations and dislocations, with the true 
connection restored and a consequent gain to each in 
significance, harmony, and clearness. Instead of this 
there is nothing to show for P, J, or E but mutilated 
fragments, which yield no continuous or intelligible nar- 
rative, but require for their explanation and to fill their 
lacunae precisely those passages which the critical pro- 
cess has rent from them. We are expected to assume, 
with no other evidence than that the exigencies of the 
hypothesis require it, that these P, J, and E fragments 
represent what were originally three complete docu- 
ments, but that the missing parts were removed by R. 

" We now come," as Noldeke says, " to the most dis- 
tressing gap in the whole of P." And he undertakes to 
account for it by the gratuitous assumption that P's 
account was so decidedly contradictory to that of the 
other documents that R was obliged to omit it alto- 
gether. In fact P is almost as absolute a blank in what 
follows as it was in regard to Jacob's abode in Paddan- 
aram. 

THE DIVINE NAMES 

The divine names here give no aid in the matter of 
critical division. Jehovah occurs in but three of these 
fourteen chapters, and in only eight verses, each time 
with evident appropriateness. It is found in connec- 
tion with God's dealings with the chosen race, on the 
one hand his punitive righteousness toward offenders 



DICTION AND STYLE (CH. XXXVII. 2-L.) 435 

(xxxviii. 7, 10), and on the other his gracious care of 
Joseph, assurances of which are heaped together at the 
beginning of his servitude in Egypt (xxxix. 2, 3, 5, 21, 
23) ; after this it appears but once, viz., in a pious ejacu- 
lation of the dying patriarch Jacob (xlix. 18). Elohim 
occurs repeatedly in these chapters, and in a manner 
which Hupfeld (" Quellen," p. 178) confesses to be em- 
barrassing to the critics as contravening the requirements 
of their hypothesis. The predominance of this name in 
this section cannot be traced to the habit of a particular 
writer, since it is supposed to be about equally shared 
between J and E. It is regulated by the proprieties of 
the situation, with which it is always in accord. There 
are three considerations which explain the matter. Elo- 
him is used — 

1. When Egyptians speak or are spoken to, as xli. 16, 
38 ; and Joseph is classed as an Egyptian while he was 
unknown to his brethren (xlii. 18 ; xliv. 16). 

2. Where God's general providential orderings are re- 
ferred to (xli. 51, 52) ; and especially where they are 
explicitly or implicitly contrasted with the purposes of 
men (xlv. 5-9 ; 1. 19, 20). 

3. Where there is an appeal to God's almighty power 
(xlvi. 2-4) ; in this case El Shaddai may be substituted 
(xliii. 14; xlviii. 3, 4). 

DICTION AND STYLE 

Neither is the partition conducted on the basis of such 
literary criteria as diction and style. Only a few scat- 
tered scraps, amounting in all to about twenty-five 
verses, 1 are assigned to P, such as can be severed from 

iViz.. xxxvii. 2a; xli. 46a ; xlvi. 6. 7 ; xlvii. 5-11, 27b. 28; xlviii. 3-6 
(7?); xlix. la, 2Sb-33 ; 1. 12, 13, with a possible addition of xlvi. 8-27, 
the enumeration of Jacob's descendants, about which the critics are 
not agreed. 



436 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

the main body of the narrative as entering least into its 
general flow and texture. The mass of the matter, as 
has uniformly been the case since ch. xxiii., is divided 
between J and E, which by confession of the critics 
can only be distinguished with the greatest difficulty. 1 
Whenever it is impossible to effect a partition it is 
claimed that R must have blended the documents inex- 
tricably together. In other places a few disconnected 
clauses are sundered from a J section and given to E, or 
from an E section and given to J ; and these are claimed 
as evidence of two separate narratives. At other times 
arbitrary grounds of distinction are invented, such as 
assigning to E all dreams that are mentioned, or differ- 
ent incidents of the narrative are parcelled between 
them, as though they were varying accounts of the same 
thing, whereas they are distinct items in a complete and 
harmonious whole. Genealogical tables, dates, removals, 
deaths, and legal transactions or ritual enactments are as 
a rule given to P. Historical narratives are attributed 
to J and E, and are divided between them not by any 
definite criteria of style, but by the artifice of imaginary 
doublets or arbitrary distinctions, leaving numerous 
breaks and unfilled gaps in their train. And in this 
halting manner the attempt is made to establish the 

1 Thus Kayser says (Das Vorexilische Buch, p. 28) : "The little frag- 
ments of the Elohist (P) inserted in Genesis from ch. xxiii. onward all 
refer to keeping the race elected in Abraham pure from admixture 
with the Canaanitish tribes, and its exclusive right to tbe possession of 
Canaan, which is confirmed both by narratives of acquisition of the soil 
and of the departure of the side lines of Ishmael and Esau. Sparse as 
they have thus far been found, they become still more rare in what 
follows. The attempt of Tuch and Knobel, based on the supplement 
hypothesis, to find in the history of Jacob's descendants, especially of 
Joseph, a radical portion of the so-called primary document P, has been 
shown to be untenable, since Hupfeld has given the proof that the pas- 
sages referred to the first Elohist by those scholars belong to the second 
Elohist, worked over by, and inseparable from, the Jehovist." 



JOSEPH SOLD INTO EGYPT (CH. XXXVII. 2-36) 437 

existence of what the critics would have us regard as 
separate and continuous documents. The method itself 
is sufficient to condemn the whole process and to show 
that the results are altogether factitious. It could be 
applied with equal plausibility to any composition, what- 
ever the evidence of its unity. 

JOSEPH SOLD INTO EGYPT — (CH. XXXVII. 2-36) 
VARIANCE AMONG CEITICS 

No pretext for division is here afforded by Elohim or 
Jehovah, since no name of God occurs in this chapter. 
Astruc, Eichhorn, and Tuch regard it as a unit, and re- 
fer it without abatement to P. It has, however, been va- 
riously divided, and it affords a good illustration of the 
ease with which a narrative embracing several incidents 
can be partitioned at the pleasure of the critic. 1 Ilgen 

1 This chapter is partitioned by different critics in the following man- 
ner : 

Ilgen : P, vs. 2, 14 (omit "and he came to Shechem"), 18b, c, 21- 
23a, b, 24, 25a, 28a, b, d, 29-31, 32b, c, 34, 36. E, vs. 3-13, 14 (last 
clause), 15-18a, 19, 20, 25b-27, 23, 28c, 32, 33, 35 ; xxxix. 1. 

Gramberg: P, vs. 2, 18, 21 (for "Reuben" read " Judah"), 25-27, 
28c, d ; xxxix. 1. J, vs. 5-11, 19, 20, 22, 24, 28a, b, 29, 30, 36. Com- 
mon to both, vs. 3, 4, 12-17, 23, 31-35. 

Knobel: P, vs. 2-4, 23-27, 28c, d, 31, 32a. Rechtsbuch, vs. 5-22a, 
28a, b, 32b-36. J, vs. 22b, 29, 30. 

Boehmer : J, vs. 2a, 3, 4, 11a, 18c, 25b-27, 28b, 32a, c, d, 33a, d, 
34, 35a, b. E, vs. 5-10, lib, 12 (omit "in Shechem"), 14a, b, 17c, 
18a, b, 19-21, 22a, 23-25a, 28a, 29-31, 32b, 33b, c, 35c, 36. R, vs. 2b, 
5b, 8b, 12 (in Shechem), 13, 14c, 15-1 7a, b, d, 22b, 23c, 28c, 36 (Poti- 
phar). 

Hupfeld : J, vs. 25b-27, 28c. E, vs. 2-25a, 28a, b, d-36. 

Schrader : J, vs. 23-27, 28c, d, 31-35. E, vs. 2b-22, 28a, b, 29, 30, 
36. 

Wellhausen : J, vs. 12, 13a, b, 14-17, 19-21 (for " Reuben " read 
"Judah"), 23,24, 25-27, 28c, 31-36. E, vs. 2b-ll, 13c, 18,22,28a, 
b, d-30 ? 



438 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

partitions it between the two Elohists with the following 
result : P uses the name Jacob (vs. 1, 34), represents 
Joseph as habitually with the flocks (ver. 2), wearing an 
ordinary coat (vs. 23a, 32b, 33), incurring the hatred of 
his brothers by bringing an evil report of them to his 
father (ver. 2). Reuben as the first-born takes a promi- 
nent part, counsels not to kill Joseph, and is afterward 
inconsolable (vs. 21, 22, 29, 30). Midianites take Joseph 
from the pit without the knowledge of his brothers (ver. 
28), and sell him into Egypt to Potiphar, an officer of 
Pharaoh (ver. 36). E, on the contrary, uses the name 
Israel (vs. 3, 13), and represents Joseph as the son of 
his father's old age (ver. 3), unacquainted with the flocks 
(vs. 15, 16), wearing a coat of many colors (or rather a 
long garment with sleeves) (vs. 3, 23b, 32a), hated by his 
brothers because of his distinguished dress and his fa- 
ther's partiality for him (ver. 4), and hated still more for 
his dreams (vs. 5-11). Judah acts the part of the first- 
born (ver. 26) ; his brothers on his advice sell Joseph to 

Dillmanii, 1st edition: J, vs. 3, 4, 23c, 25-27, 28e, some expressions 
in 32-35. J and E mixed, vs. 23, 32, 34, 35. E, the remainder. 

Dillmann, 3d edition : J, vs. 2b, 3, 4, 18b, 21 (for " Reuben" read 
" Judah "), 23*-27, 28c, 31*-35*. J and E mixed, vs. 23, 31, 32 (" coat " 
and " long tunic" in combination), vs. 34, 35 (34b and 35b doublets). 
R, vs. 5b, 8b, Israel, Shechem, and Hebron in 14, slight change in 18. 
In ver. 9, " and told it to his brethren," is an interpolation. E, rest 
of the chapter. 

Kittell: J, vs. 2b, 3, 4a, 11a, 12, 13a, 14-18, 21 (for " Reuben "read 
"Judah"), 23c, 25b-27, 28c, 32, 33 (in great part), 35 (except the last 
part). E, vs. 2a, c, 4b-10, lib, 13b, 19, 20 (except "and cast him into 
one of the pits"), 22, 23a, b, 24, 25a, 28a, b, d, 29-31, parts of 32 and 
33, 34, the last three words of 35, 36. 

Kautzsch : J, vs. 3, 4, 21 (for "Reuben" read "Judah"), 23c, 25b- 
27, 28c, 32, 33, 35. E, vs. 2c, 5a, 6-11, 19, 20, 22, 28a, b, d-31, 32 
(first verb), 34, 36. JE, vs. 2a, 12-18, 23a, b, 24, 25a. R, vs. 2b, 5b, 
8b, 10a. 

Driver : J, vs. 12-21, 25-27, 28c, 31-35. E, vs. 2b-ll, 22-24, 28a, 
b, d-30, 36. 



JOSEPH SOLD INTO EGYPT (CII. XXXVII. 2-36) 439 

the Ishmaelites (vs. 27, 28b). His father says that he 
will go down to Sheol mourning for his son (ver. 35). 
Joseph is sold to some Egyptian whose name is not 
given (xxxix. 1 ; " Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, cap- 
tain of the guard," is ejected from this verse as an inter- 
polation). 

De Wette * charges Ilgen with being arbitrary and go- 
ing too far, but agrees with him to a certain extent. He 
fancies that there are inconsistencies in the narrative, 
which can only be relieved by the assumption that two 
variant accounts have been blended. After the adoption 
of Eeuben's proposal (ver. 23) to cast Joseph into a 
pit instead of killing him, Judah says (ver. 26), " What 
profit is it if we slay our brother ? " as if they still in- 
tended to kill him. Eeuben makes no objection to Ju- 
dah's proposal to sell Joseph ; and yet he is afterward 
distressed at not finding Joseph in the pit, though there 
had been no mention of his absence when the sale was 
effected. This indicates that different stories are here 
confused together. According to one, Joseph was cast 
at Reuben's suggestion into a pit, and subsequently 
drawn out and carried off by Midianite merchants who 
were passing. According to the other, Joseph's brothers 
had conspired to kill him, but sold him instead to Ish- 
maelites. 

Gramberg distributes the chapter between P and J, 
certain paragraphs being common to both. Both tell 
that Joseph was his father's favorite, and had been pre- 
sented by him with a long robe, which excited his broth- 
ers' hostility. Both tell that Joseph was sent by his 
father from Hebron to Shechem to find his brothers, who 
were with the flocks. And both describe the deception 
practised upon Jacob, and his inconsolable grief at the 
loss of Joseph. P tells of Judah and the sale to the 

1 Beitrage zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament, ii., pp. 142 sqq. 



440 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

Ishinaelites, and J of Reuben and Joseph being carried 
off by the Midianites • which is the reverse of Ilgen's as- 
signment, who makes P tell of the latter and E of the 
former. 

Knobel, the latest and most minutely elaborate of the 
supplementary critics, recognizes in Genesis only an 
Elohist Primary Document, P, which gives a compara- 
tively trustworthy statement of facts ; and a Jehovist 
Reviser, J, who incorporates with the preceding the leg- 
endary embellishments of later times. P's account is 
that Joseph's reporting his brothers' misdeeds and his 
father's partiality for him so exasperated his brothers, 
with whom he was feeding the nocks, that they threw 
him into a pit, and then at Judah's instance sold him to 
Islirnaelites, who took him to Egypt ; after this they dip 
Joseph's coat in blood and send it to their father. J 
adds from some other authority the prophetic dreams, 
Joseph's being sent by his father in quest of his broth- 
ers, their conspiring against him as they saw him ap- 
proaching, Reuben's proposal not to shed his blood but 
to put him in a pit (meaning, in the intent of the author- 
ity from which this was drawn, to let him perish there ; 
but, by inserting ver. 22b, J converts this into a purpose 
to restore him to his father ; and he further introduces 
in the same vein (vs. 29, 30) Reuben's subsequent dis- 
tress at not finding Joseph in the pit). J makes no men- 
tion of the adoption of Reuben's proposal ; but this is to 
be presumed, as Midianites pass, who draw Joseph out 
of the pit and sell him to Potiphar. Finally, Jacob's 
grief is depicted at the sight of his son's coat, which was 
sent to him. 

Bohmer divides the chapter between J, E, and R, as- 
signing nothing whatever to P. Even the title of the 
section (ver. 2a), "These are the generations of Jacob," 
which the critics commonly claim for P, though most un- 



JOSEPH SOLD INTO EGYPT (CH. XXXVII. 2-36) 441 

reasonably, is given by him to J. A large share is imputed 
to R, in order to cover the halting-places of the analysis, or 
to carry the principle of subdivision consistently through. 
As three reasons are assigned for the hostility of Joseph's 
brothers, viz., his evil report of their conduct, his father's 
partiality, and his dreams, and the last two are divided 
between J and E, the first (ver. 2b) is given to K. As 
each document is supposed to speak of but one ground 
of hostility, this could not be represented as augmenting 
what had not been before alluded to ; hence, vs. 5b, 8b, 
must have been introduced by E. As E never speaks 
of Shechem, 1 and J would not have the sons of Jacob 
feed their flocks where they had committed such a deed 
of violence 2 (xxxiv. 25-27) ; moreover, as Hebron Avas 
the abode of the patriarchs in P (xxiii. 2, xxxv. 27), but 
not in J or E, vs. 13, 14c and the words " in Shechem " 
(ver. 12) must belong to R. For a like reason the de- 
signation of Do than as the scene of the transaction that 
follows is not referable to J or E, hence vs. 15-17 are 
given to R, except the single clause in ver. 17c, " and Jo- 
seph went after his brethren." R inserted ver. 22b to 



1 Bohmer assigns xxxiii. 18 to J, and xxxv. 4 to R. 

2 Matthew Poole remarked upon this : " One may rather wonder that 
he durst venture his sons and his cattle there, where that barbarous 
massacre had been committed. But those pastures being his own (xxxiii. 
19) and convenient for his use, he did commit himself and them to that 
same good Providence which watched over him then and ever since, 
and still kept up that terror which then he sent upon them. Besides, 
Jacob's sons and servants made a considerable company, and the men 
of Shechem being universally slain, others were not very forward to 
revenge their quarrel, where there was any hazard to themselves in 
such an enterprise." It may be added that in the time which had 
since elapsed Jacob had had opportunity to acquaint himself with the 
temper of the surrounding population and to re-establish peaceful rela- 
tions with them. It is not even necessary to suppose with Astruc (Con- 
jectures, p. 401) that the affair of Dinah took place after Joseph had 
been sold into Egypt. 



442 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

make it appear that Reuben intended to restore Joseph 
to his father, which was not his intention in the original 
story. Yer. 23c must also be referred to him, since E 
could not mention " the long robe," of which only J had 
spoken (ver. 3) ; also ver. 28c, because it duplicates xxxix. 
I. Finally, the name " Potiphar " is struck out of ver. 36 
as an insertion by R. This is with the view of creating 
a discrepancy between this verse and xxxix. 1. " Poti- 
phar" is erased from the former, and "an officer of Pha- 
raoh, captain of the guard," is erased from the latter, and 
then it is claimed that these verses contain variant rep- 
resentations of the person to whom Joseph was sold. 
Other critics accomplish the same end by retaining 
" Potiphar," in ver. 36, and erasing it in xxxix. 1. All 
which shows how easy it is to reverse a writer's positive 
statements, and creatp divergences where there are none 
by simply making free with the text. 

Hupfeld (" Quellen," pp. 67 sqq.) reproduces the view 
of De Wette by giving the entire chapter to E, except vs. 
25b-27, 28c. The narrative is thus resolved into two 
accounts differing in three points, viz., the name of the 
brother who saved Joseph's life, how he came to Egypt, 
and the person who bought him. According to E Reu- 
ben proposed to put him in a pit, whence he was se- 
cretly drawn out by passing Midianites, who sold him to 
Potiphar, captain of the guard. According to J, at Ju- 
dah's suggestion Joseph's brothers sell him to a caravan 
of Ishmaelites, of whom he was bought by an unnamed 
Egyptian (xxxix. 1). It is claimed that each account is 
complete and separable ; only in ver. 28 they are so com- 
bined that the verbs are referred to wrong subjects. The 
clause, " and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty 
pieces of silver," is to be sundered from the rest of the 
verse and attached to ver. 27. Yerse 28 will then read, 
" and there passed by Midianites, merchantmen ; and 



JOSEPH SOLD INTO EGYPT (OH. XXXVII. 2-36) 443 

they (the Midianites) drew and lifted up Joseph out of 
the pit. And they brought Joseph into Egypt." This 
connects back with ver. 25a ; it occurred while Joseph's 
brothers were sitting together taking bread. It does not 
appear from J that Joseph was put into a pit at all. 
Schrader enlarges J's portion by adding to it (vs. 23, 24, 
31-35), with the effect of transferring the statement of 
Joseph's being put in the pit, and of his father's grief, 
from E to J. This still leaves the whole of the narra- 
tive prior to ver. 23 with E, and nothing in J respecting 
the relation of Joseph to his brothers, until suddenly, 
without a word of explanation, they are found deliberat- 
ing whether to kill him or to sell him as a slave. 

Wellhausen is too acute a critic and too ingenious in 
discovering doublets to suffer this state of things to 
continue. He remarks : x " Yerses 12-24 are preparatory 
to vs. 25 sqq., and are indispensable for both E and J. 
To be sure, no certain conclusion can be drawn from this 
alone as to its composite character, but a presumption is 
created in its favor which is confirmed by actual traces 
of its being double." Acting upon this presumption he 
sets himself to discover the traces. It seems to him that 
" Here am I," is not the proper answer to what Israel 
says to Joseph (ver. 13) ; and that ver. 18 does not fit in 
between vs. 17 and 19. "They saw him afar off" im- 
plies that he had not yet " found them ; " and " they con- 
spired against him to slay him," is a parallel to ver. 20. 
Yerses 21 and 22 are also doublets, only instead of "Beu- 
ben," in ver. 21 (an old suggestion of Gramberg's) we 
should read " Judah," whose proposal is to cast him into 
the pit (ver. 20), to perish, without killing him them- 
selves, while Reuben (ver. 22) has the secret purpose of 
rescuing him. From these premises he concludes that 
while J is the principal narrator in this paragraph, as 
1 Composition des Hexateuchs, p. 53. 



444 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

shown by Israel (ver. 13), Hebron (ver. 14), and verbal 
suffixes passim, nevertheless vs. 13c, 14a, 18, 22, and parts 
of vs. 23, 24, in which irifc repeatedly occurs instead of a 
suffix attached to the verb, belong to E and represent his 
parallel narrative, which has only been preserved in this 
fragmentary way. 

In vs. 2b-ll he is less successful in discovering traces 
of twofold authorship. These verses are attributed to 
E, who deals more largely with dreams than J, and who, 
moreover, has Q h 2j?T 1/3l son of his old age (ver. 3 as xxi. 2) 
against a*0pt lb? child of his old age (xliv. 20 J) ; H3M 
D^DS long tunic (ver. 3 as vs. 23, 32) against ttpfi coat, J, 
and especially has in& constantly (vs. 4, 5, 8, 9), instead 
of a verbal suffix, in marked contrast with vs. 12 sqq. 
" With the sons of Bilhah," etc. (ver. 2) does not accord 
accurately with the preceding clause, and " he told it to 
his father and to his brethren " (J ver. 10) deviates from 
the statement in ver. 9 ; but he thinks these to be addi- 
tions by a later hand and not from J. He has, however, 
one resource ; vs. 19, 20, J, speak of Joseph's dreams, 
consequently J must have given some account of them, 
though it has not been preserved. 

Dillmann proves in this instance to have had sharper 
eyes than "Wellhausen, and has found the desired doub- 
lets where the latter could discover none. To be sure, 
he unceremoniously sets aside Wellhausen's criteria. 
He gives vs. 19. 20, to E (not J) in spite of repeated ver- 
bal suffixes which he will not recognize here as a dis- 
criminating mark, in spite, too, of nj^n which occurs 
xxiv. 65 J, and nowhere else in the Old Testament ; and 
accordingly he does not allow the inference that J gave a 
parallel account of the dreams. But taking the hint 
from Bohmer he finds the coveted parallel by setting 
vs. 3, 4, as J's explanation of the hatred of Joseph, over 
against that of E in vs. 5-11. According to J, his broth- 



JOSEPH SOLD INTO EGYPT (CH. XXXVII. 2-30) 445 

ers hated him because he was his father's favorite ; ac- 
cording to E, because of his ambitious dreams. 1 J says 
"they hated him" (ver. 4) ^IfcttW ; E " they envied him" 
Iyer. 11) IK!}??]. 2 To be sure tf: ; u hated occurs twice over 
in the E paragraph (vs. 5, 8), and with explicit reference 
to ver. 4, clearly indicating the identity of the writer. But 
if anyone imagines that such a trifle as this can disturb 
a critic's conclusions he is much mistaken. Dillmann 
blandly says that the unwelcome clauses were inserted 
by E, and lo ! they disappear at once. The word of a 
critic is equal to the wand of a magician. When he says 
that ver. 5b is inappropriate where it stands because the 
actual recital of the dream follows (vs. 6, 7), Delitzsch 
reminds him that such anticipatory announcements are 
quite usual, and cites ii. 8 ; he might have cited ver. 28d 
from this very chapter. He says the same of ver. 8b, 
because only one dream had yet been told, forgetting the 
numerous examples of the generic use of the plural. 3 
a^pT"? and D^3S roh3 (ver. 3), which TTellhausen ad- 
duces as characteristic of E, become with Dillmann in- 
dicative of J. Knobel remarks that ver. 7 and xxvi. 12 
are the only two passages in the Pentateuch in which 
the patriarchs are spoken of as cultivating the soil, or 

1 Dillmann explains the allusion to Joseph's mother (xxxvii. 10), 
whose death is mentioned xxxv. 19, by his favorite method of trans- 
position, assuming that the statement of her death in E really occurred 
after this time ; but R, for the sake of harmonizing with P, inserted it 
sooner. But it remains to be shown that Leah could not be referred to 
in this manner after Rachel's death. 

- Kittell reverses this by connecting ver. 4b with "2c. and ver. 11a 
with 4a, and so making E speak of Joseph's brothers hating him for his 
talebearing and his dreams, and J of their envying him on account of 
his father's partiality. This shows how easy it is for a critic by adroitly 
shifting the lines of partition to alter the connection of clauses and 
modify their meaning. 

3 Cf. Gen. viii. 4; xiii. 12 ; xxi. 7 ; Xum. xxvi. 8; Judg. xii. 7 ; 1 
Sam. xvii. 43; Job xvii. 1. 



446 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

otherwise than nomads ; they should, therefore, be as- 
cribed to the same hand. The critics lay stress upon a 
point like this when it suits them ; otherwise they qui- 
etly ignore it. Dillmann gives ver. 7 to E ; xxvi. 12 
to J. 

Dillmann further finds a foothold for J in ver. 2, by 
insisting that ver. 2a and 2b are mutually exclusive, and 
that the former should be given to P or E, and the latter 
to J.* Delitzsch cannot see why, in point of matter, they 
may not have proceeded from the same pen, while in 
grammatical construction i. 2, 3 offers a precise parallel. 

Critics are divided in opinion as to the share which is 
to be allowed P in xxxvii. 2. By common consent they 
assign him the initial words, " These are the generations 
of Jacob," i.e., an account of Jacob's family from the time 
that he was recognized as the independent head of the 
chosen race ; and thus we have a P title to a J and E 
section. The majority also refer to him the following 
clause, "Joseph was seventeen years old," with or with- 
out the rest of the sentence, which then becomes utterly 
unmeaning, and is out of connection with anything what- 
ever. The only reason for thus destroying its sense by 
severing it from the narrative to which it belongs is the 
critical assumption that all dates must be attributed to P. 
But Noldeke revolts at the rigorous enforcement of this 
rule. He says, " The mention of the youthful age of 
Joseph suits very well in the whole connection as well as 
that of his manly age (xli. 46), and of the advanced age 
which he attained (1. 26). These numbers also have no 
connection whatever with the chronological system of 
the Primary Document (P) any more than the twenty 
years' abode in Mesopotamia (xxxi. 38, 41)." Well- 
hausen gives no positive opinion on the subject. Dill- 
mann assigned this clause to E in his first edition, but 
in his second and third hesitates between P and E. 



JOSEPH SOLD INTO EGYPT (CH. XXXVII. 2-36) 447 

In the first four editions of his Genesis Delitzsch 
could find no evidence of a duplicate narrative in ch. 
xxxvii. In his last edition he changed his mind, though 
he was still unable to accept Dillmann's keen analysis, 
which seemed to him to go " beyond the limits of the 
knowable." He ventures no further than to assign vs. 
28a, b, 29, 30, to E, and ver. 28c, d to J, and to claim 
that thenceforward the narrative of E and J are in agree- 
ment, while the text has prevailingly the coloring of J, 
only " the Midianites " in ver. 36 are a sure indication 
of E. 

It will not be necessary to proceed with the recital of 
other proposed partitions, which are sufficiently indicated 
in a previous note. The critics have shown how vari- 
ously the same narrative may be divided. And it must 
be a very intractable material indeed that can resist the 
persistent application of such methods as they freely 
employ. The fact that different versions of a story can 
be constructed out of a narrative by an ingenious parti- 
tion of its constituent elements by no means proves its 
composite character. They may be purely subjective, 
destitute of any historical basis, and of no more value 
than any clever trick at cross-reading. 

GROUNDS OF PARTITION 

Wellhausen admits that " the connection of the matter 
in ch. xxxvii. is certainly such that it would scarcely give 
occasion for separating it into two threads, were it not 
for the conclusion (vs. 25-36)." Here it is alleged that 
there are certain glaring inconsistencies, which cannot 
be otherwise accounted for than as the fusing together of 
discordant narratives. Four discrepancies are charged, 
which lie at the basis of every attempt to partition the 
chapter. 



448 THE GENERATIONS OE JACOB 

1. Verses 21, 22, it was Reuben, but ver. 26 it was 
Judah, who persuaded the brothers not to put Joseph to 
death. 

2. Verses 25, 27, 28, xxxix. 1, Ishmaelites, but vs. 
28, 36, Midianites, took Joseph and brought him to 

Egypt. 

3. According to different clauses of ver. 28, Joseph was 
carried off secretly without the knowledge of his brothers, 
or was sold by them. 

4. Verse 36, he was sold to Potiphar, but xxxix. 1 
(purged of interpolations), to an unnamed Egyptian. 

These imaginary difficulties are of easy solution. 

As to the first. It surely is not surprising that two of 
the brothers should have taken an active part in the con- 
sultations respecting Joseph, nor that the same two 
should be prominent in the subsequent course of the 
transactions. Reuben, as the eldest, had special respon- 
sibilities and would naturally be forward to express his 
mind ; while Jud all's superior force of character, like 
that of Peter among the apostles, made him prompt to 
take the lead, and there is no inconsistency in what is 
attributed to them. Reuben persuaded them not to kill 
Joseph, but to cast him alive into a pit, cherishing the 
purpose, which he did not divulge to them, to restore 
him to his father. They accede to his proposal intend- 
ing to let Joseph die in the pit, or to kill him at some 
future time. To this state of mind Judah addresses him- 
self (ver. 26). The absence of Reuben, when Joseph was 
sold, is not expressly stated, but is plainly enough im- 
plied in his despair and grief at his brother's disappear- 
ance. The reply which his brothers made is not re- 
corded ; but there is no implication that they were as 
ignorant as he of what had become of Joseph. That 
they had a guilt in the matter which he did not share is 
distinctly intimated (xlii. 22) ; he must, therefore, have 



JOSEPH SOLD INTO EGYPT (CH. XXXVII. 2-36) 449 

been fully aware that they did something more than put 
Joseph in the pit at his suggestion. 

As to the second point. Ishmaelites in the strict and 
proper sense were a distinct tribe from the Midianites, 
and were of different though related origin. It is, how- 
ever, a familiar fact, which we have had occasion to observe 
before, that tribal names are not always used with defi- 
nite exactness (cf. xxxvi. 2 ; see p. 422). And there is ex- 
plicit evidence that Ishmaelites was used in a wide sense 
to include Midianites (Judg. viii. 24 ; cf. vii. 1 sqq. ; viii. 
1 sqq.). Dillmann's objection that this belonged to a 
later period comes with a bad grace from one who places 
the earliest Pentateuchal documents centuries after Gid- 
eon. If the invading army referred to in the passages 
above cited could be called indifferently Midianites and 
Ishmaelites, why not this caravan of merchants ? The 
British troops at the battle of Trenton in the American 
revolution were Hessians, and might be properly spoken 
of under either designation. If a historian were to use 
these terms interchangeably in describing the engage- 
ment, would it follow that variant accounts had been con- 
fusedly mingled ? The absence of the article before 
Midianites (ver. 28) does not imply that they were dis- 
tinct from the Ishmaelites before perceived (vs. 25, 27). 
They were recognized in the distance as an Ishmaelite 
caravan, but it was not till they actually came up to them 
that the Ishinaelites were perceived to be specifically or 
largely Midianites. 

As to the third point. If the first half of ver. 28 were 
severed from its connection, the words might mean that 
Midianites drew Joseph out of the pit. But in the con- 
nection in which it stands such a sense is simply im- 
possible. And the suggestion that R had two statements 
before him : one, that Midianites drew Joseph out of the 
pit without his brothers' knowledge and carried him off 



450 THE GENERATIONS OE JACOB 

to Egypt ; the other, that his brothers drew him from 
the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites; and that he 
combined them as we have them now, is to charge him 
with inconceivable stupidity or reckless falsification. 
There can be no manner of doubt how the author of the 
book in its present form understood the transaction. 
There is no possible suggestion of more than one mean- 
ing in the words before us. The invention of another 
sense may illustrate the critic's wit, but it has no more 
merit than any other perversion of an author's obvious 
meaning. And it derives no warrant from xl. 15 ; Joseph 
was " stolen away," even though his captors bought him 
from those who had no right to dispose of him. 

The fourth point can be best considered when we come 
to ch. xxxix. 

MARKS OF J 

Dilhnann does not pretend to base the partition of this 
chapter upon peculiarities of diction. But in the course 
of his exposition he notes the following words as though 
they were confirmatory of it : 

1. Israel (ver. 3 J ; 13 E, modified by E) ; Jacob (ver. 
31a), referred to E solely on account of this word. 
Dillmann undertakes to carry consistently through the 
rule laid down by Wellhausen, 1 but which through the 
fault of E he admits has not been strictly observed, 2 viz., 
that after xxxv. 10 J calls the patriarch Israel, E calls him 
Jacob, but his sons the sons of Israel, w T hile P continues 
to speak of Jacob and the sons of Jacob. Whence re- 
sults this curious circumstance : P (xxxv. 10) and E (xxxii. 
29 ; so Dillmann) record the change of name to Israel, 
but never use it ; J alone makes use of it, and, according 
to Dillmann, he does not record the change at all. There 
is a singular inconsistency likewise in the conduct of E. 
1 Composition des Hexateuclis, p. 59. 2 Ibid. , p. 60. 



JOSEPH SOLD IXTO EGYPT (CH. XXXVII. 2-36) 451 

P alone mentions the change in the names of Abraham 
and Sarah (xvii. 5, 15), but E is so concerned to have the 
documents uniform in this respect that from this point 
onward he alters these names in J and E to correspond 
with P ; why does he not here in like manner bring P 
and E into correspondence with J ? And it is only by 
palpable forcing that Dillmann succeeds in uniformly as- 
signing " Israel " to J (see e.g., xlv. 27, 28 ; xlvi. 1, 2 ; xlvii. 
27 ; xlviii. 2, 8, 10, 11, 14, 21). Kuenen admits that " nu- 
merous exceptions to the rule occur." At this period of 
transition when the family is branching out into the na- 
tion these two names seem to be used interchangeably. 
If any distinction whatever is intended, it is purely in 
the writer's point of view, who may have used the per- 
sonal name Jacob when he regarded the patriarch strictly 
as an individual, and the name Israel when he thought 
of him as the head and representative of the chosen 
race. 

2. d^DS ti:hs long tunic (vs. 3, 23, 32). The expression 
occurs nowhere in the Hexateuch but in this chapter. It 
is alleged that, according to J, Joseph wore a " long- 
tunic," the special gift of his father, but according to E 
only an ordinary " tunic " HJP3. But these expressions 
are combined or used interchangeably in vs. 23, 31, 32 ; 
and they can only be referred to distinct documents by 
partitioning closely connected clauses in an arbitrary 
manner. 

3. T>nin bring down (into Egypt) (ver. 25) ; besides in 
J xxxix. 1 ; xliii. 11, 22 ; xliv. 21 ; for which E has 8W1 
bring (ver. 28) ; but no difference of conception is im- 
plied by this varied phrase, since E has repeatedly T}? 
go doivn (into Egypt) (xlii. 2b, 3 ; xlv. 9 ; xlvi. 3, 4), as 
J (xliii. 15, 20 ; xliv. 23, 26) ; xlii. 38 is sundered from 
its proper connection in E and ascribed to J ; J also has 
813 come (xlvi. 31 ; xlvii. 1, 4 ; cf. xliii. 2). 



452 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

That varied forms of expression are consistent with 
sameness of authorship by confession of the critics ap- 
pears from the phrase " rent his clothes," in which ver. 
29 has "fta and ver. 34a has rbiy®, yet both are referred 
toE. 

It is also worth noting that HS'n report (ver. 2) is re- 
ferred by Dillmann to J, though it only occurs besides in 
the Hexateuch in Num. xiii. 32 ; xiv. 36, 37 P ; also nsn 
speak (ver. 4), which only occurs besides in the Hexateuch, 
with the accusative of the person, in Num. xxvi. 3 P ; and 
bssnn conspire against (ver. 18b). This verb occurs but 
once besides in the Hexateuch (Num. xxv. 18 P), where 
it is in the Piel form. And D^2 Wto he-goat (ver. 31) is 
ascribed to E, though it is only found besides in the 
Hexateuch in the ritual law, where it occurs repeatedly 
and is uniformly ascribed to P. 

THE NARRATIVE OF JUDAH AND TAMAR (CH. XXXVIII.) 
NO LACK OF ORDER 

Because the narrative concerning Joseph is interrupted 
by ch. xxxviii., De Wette l inferred that " we have here 
a compilation, not a continuous history by one narrator." 
The charge of displacement has been regularly repeated 
ever since, though obviously unfounded. This chapter 
is entirely germane to the subject treated, and it belongs 
precisely where it is in the author's plan. He is pro- 
fessedly giving an account of " the generations of Jacob " 
(xxxvii. 2), not the life of Joseph simply, but the history 
of Jacob's family. Joseph is necessarily thrown into 
prominence, since the events which brought about the 
removal of the chosen race to Egypt were so largely con- 
nected with him. But the incidents of this chapter have 
their importance in the constitution of Jacob's family at 

1 Beitrage, ii., p. 146. 



JUDAH AND TAMAK (OH. XXXVIII.) 453 

the time of the migration to Egypt (xlvi. 12), and in the 
permanent tribal arrangements of Israel (Num. xxvi. 19 
sqq.), as explanatory of the origin of the tribal families of 
Juclah. The writer conducts Joseph to Egypt, where he 
is sold as a slave. There he leaves him for a while until 
these facts in Judah's family are related, when he re- 
sumes the thread of Joseph's narrative precisely where 
he left off, and proceeds as before. It is just the method 
that the best writers pursue in similar circumstances. So 
far from suggesting confusion or disarrangement, it ar- 
gues an orderly well-considered plan. 

Judah is said (ver. 1) to have separated himself from 
his brethren "at that time," that is to say, shortly after 
Joseph was sold into Egypt. It is not at all unlikely, as 
Kurtz l suggests, that the connection here is much more 
intimate than that of a simple conjunction in time. Un- 
able to endure the sight of his father's grief (xxxvii. 35), 
and goaded by Reuben's reproaches (cf. xxxvii. 29, 30 ; 
xlii. 22), and the upbraidings of his own conscience, he 
left his father's house, and was thus led into a marriage 
with a Canaanitess. And the providential retribution 
followed of successive afflictions in the loss of his sons, 
in return for the grievous loss which he had inflicted upon 
his father, and of the deterioration of his character by 
contact with impurity, and, as it would also appear, with 
idolatry. The " kedesha " (vs. 21, 22) was one who sur- 
rendered herself in the service of the goddess Astarte. 

The chronological objection which has been made to 
this narrative is as futile as that which is directed against 
its continuity. If Judah's marriage took place soon after 
Joseph was sold, as is expressly stated, Judah was then 
twenty years old, and there is no reason why all that is 
recorded in this chapter may not have taken place within 
the twenty-two years which preceded the migration into 

1 Gescliiclite des Alten Bundes, i., p. 277. 



454 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

Egypt. It implies early marriages on trie part of his 
sons, but not incredibly early. 



NO ANACHRONISM 

It has still further been objected that the Deutero- 
nomic law of levirate marriages (Deut. xxv. 5 sqq.) is 
here represented as in force in the time of the patriarchs. 
But there is no anachronism in this. Genesis shows that 
in several respects the laws of Moses embodied, or were 
based upon, patriarchal usages ; while, nevertheless, the 
modifications show that there has been no transference 
to a primitive period of the customs of a later time. Un- 
der the Mosaic law one who was disinclined to marrjr his 
brother's widow might be formally released from the 
obligation by certain ceremonies ; this is a relaxation of 
the imperative requirement set forth in this chapter. 
And the penalty of being burned, with which Tamar was 
threatened, was not that of the Mosaic law, which was 
being put to death by stoning (Deut. xxii. 21-24) ; in 
this Dillmann admits that there is a reminiscence of 
antelegal times. The critics claim that the Deutero- 
nomic law belongs to the reign of Josiah, yet the levi- 
rate was an established institution in the days of the 
Judges (Euth iv. 10). How much the argument from 
silence, of which the critics make so frequent use, amounts 
to in this case, may be inferred from the fact that such 
marriages, though their existence is thus trebly vouched 
for, are nowhere alluded to in the other Pentateuchal 
codes nor in the later history, until the times of the New 
Testament (Mat. xxii. 24). 

As Perez (ver. 29) was the ancestor of king David 
(Euth iv. 18-22), the late date of this chapter has been 
argued on the assumption that it was written to indicate 
the origin of the house of David. But if this were so, 



JUDAH AND TAMAR (CH. XXXVIII.) 455 

the writer must have adopted a very unusual method of 
flattering the pride of a royal house. Nor can the Ju- 
daic writer J, to whom it is attributed, have composed it 
in honor of his tribe. How displeasing it was to na- 
tional vanity appears from the fact that the Targum con- 
verts Judah's wife from the daughter of a Canaanite into 
that of a merchant, and later legends make Tamar a 
daughter of Melchizedek. These serious faults of Judah 
are doubtless related with the same design as other re- 
corded blemishes of the patriarchs. They show that the 
distinction granted to him among his brethren by mak- 
ing him the father of the royal tribe (xlix. 8), was due 
not to his personal merit, but to the gracious choice of 
God. And that the discipline to which he was subjected 
corrected and reclaimed him, as the providential dealings 
with Jacob had a like effect upon him, may be inferred 
from ver. 26, and from his noble conduct subsequently 
(xliv. 16 sqq.). 

Jehovah occurs three times in this chapter (vs. 7, 10), 
and it is for this reason ascribed to J. But the name is 
here used not in compliance with the unmeaning habit of 
the writer, but the requirements of the passage. Jeho- 
vah as the ruler and judge of his people is especially of- 
fended by their misdeeds. It is Jehovah accordingly 
who punished these transgressors. 

MARKS OF J 

1. Etymologies. See ch. xvi., Marks of J, No. 4. 

2. ^$3 sn evil in the eyes of (vs. 7, 10). * See ch. 
xxi. 1-21, Marks of E, No. 4. 

1 " Evil in the eyes of Jehovah" (vs. 7, 10) is a standing phrase, and 
is found sixty times besides in the Old Testament " Evil in the eyes 
of Elohim'' occurs but once (1 Chron. xxi. 7), and there it is ha-Elohim 
with the article. "The eyes of Jehovah" occurs, in addition, thirty- 



456 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

3. 3Tp know (euphemistic) (ver. 26). See ch. xxiv., 
Marks of J, No. 14. 

4. "P^n recognize (vs. 25, 26) ; besides in J (xxxvii. 32, 
33) ; iu E (xxvii. 23 ; xxxi. 32 ; Deut. xxxiii. 9. In Gen. 
xlii. 7, 8 bis — the critics give ver. 7 to J, and ver. 8 to E). 

5. unfriend (vs. 12, 20) ; besides in J (xi. 3, 7 ; xv. 10 ; 
xxxi. 49 ; xliii. 33) ; in E (Ex. ii. 13 ; xi. 2 ; xviii. 7, 16 ; 
xxi. 14, 18, 35 ; xxii. 6-10, 13, 25, E. Y. vs. 7-11, 14, 26 ; 
xxxii. 27 ; xxxiii. 11) ; in JE (Ex. xx. 16, 17) ; in Holi- 
ness Laws (Lev. xix. 13, 16, 18 ; xx. 10) ; in Deuteron- 
omy twenty-one times ; Josh. xx. 5 is in a P connection, 
but attributed to D. 

6. nnn come (particle of incitement) (ver. 16) ; besides 
in J (xi. 3, 4, 7 ; xlvii. 15, 16 ; Deut. xxxii. 3) ; in E 
(Gen. xxix. 21 ; xxx. 1 ; Ex. i. 10 ; Josh, xviii. 4) ; in Ed 
(Deut. i. 13). 

7. ip6nb not (ver. 9). See ch. xviii., xix., Marks of J, 
No. 14! " 

8. l^-bsps forasmuch as (ver. 26). See ch. xviii., 
xix., Marks of J, No. 18. 

9. «j I pray thee (vs. 16, 25). See ch. xii. 10-20, 
Marks of J, No. 3. 

It may be noted that HTS liere (vs. 21, 22) is referred 
to J, though everywhere else in the Pentateuch it is 
ascribed to E (xlviii. 9a ; Ex. xxiv. 14 ; Num. xxii. 19 ; 
xxiii. 1) ; or to B (Num. xxiii. 29) ; so l'np to give (ver. 9) 
is assigned to J, though this form of the infinitive occurs 
but once besides (Num. xx. 21 E). In ver. 3 Judah 
names his child, contrary to the rule of the critics that 
in J the name is given by the mother, and in P by the 
father ; but see under ch. xvi., p. 211. 

onetimes in different connections; "the eyes of Elohim" but twice 
— Num. xxiii. 27, in the words of the heathen king Balak (who says 
ha-Elohim. for he means the God of Israel) ; and Pro v. iii. 4, where it 
is occasioned by the contrast of God and man. 



LIFE OF JOSEPH CONTINUED (OH. XXXIX.) 457 

JOSEPH IS CAST INTO PEISON (CH. XXXIX.) 
NO DISCREPANCIES 

The critical partition is here rested partly on the 
ground of alleged discrepancies, partly on that of dic- 
tion. It is said that there are varying representations of 
the purchaser of Joseph. Was he (xxxvii. 36 E) Poti- 
phar, the eunuch or officer of Pharaoh, captain of the 
guard ? or was he, as in J (ch. xxxix.), simply an Egyp- 
tian, whose name and official position, if he had any, are 
unknown ? He is nowhere called Potiphar in this chap- 
ter except in ver. 1, but only Joseph's master (ver. 3), 
his Egyptian master (ver. 2), or the Egyptian (ver. 5). 
And nothing is said outside of ver. 1 of his standing in 
any special relation to Pharaoh or holding any office 
under the king ; but mention is made of " all that he had 
in the house and in the field " (ver. 5), implying that he 
was the owner of a landed estate. It is hence inferred 
that the words " Potiphar, the eunuch of Pharaoh, cap- 
tain of the guard," do not properly belong to ver. 1, but 
were inserted by E, to make it correspond with xxxvii. 
36 ; and that originally it simply read " an Egyptian," 
words which, it is alleged, would be superfluous if his 
name and title had previously been given. But the ar- 
gument for this erasure is destitute of force. The name 
" Potiphar " does not occur in ch. xl., where the critics 
admit that he is intended by Joseph's master (ver. 7 ; see 
also vs. 3, 4). Royal body-guards are not always com- 
posed of native troops, so that it may not have been a 
matter of course that their captain was an Egyptian, nor 
superfluous to mention it. Knobel thinks that this 
statement is made in contrast with the Hyksos origin 
of the monarch. Or, as Delitzsch suggests, it may em- 



458 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

phasize the fact that Joseph was not only a slave, but a 
slave of a foreigner ; the Hebrew servant (vs. 14, 17) had 
an Egyptian master. But no special reason is needed to 
justify the expression. Goliath, " from Gath, from the 
ranks of the Philistines," is further called " the Philis- 
tine " (1 Sam. xvii. 23), and throughout the chapter is 
always denominated " the Philistine," without repeating 
his name. That Potiphar had landed possessions is 
surely not inconsistent with his being the captain of the 
guard. That he was married creates no real difficulty. 
It is a disputed point whether □'no is invariably to be 
taken in its strict and primary sense of eunuch ; there 
are strong reasons for believing with Delitzsch, Kurtz, 
and others, that it sometimes has simply the general 
meaning of officer or courtier. However this may be, 
Winer * refers to Chardin, Mebuhr, and Burckhardt in 
proof of the statement that " even in the modern Orient 
eunuchs have sometimes kept a harem of their own." 
There is positively no ground, therefore, for assuming an 
interpolation in ver. 1. And the explicit statement of 
that verse annuls the critical allegation of variant stories 
respecting the person of Joseph's master. Moreover, if 
he was a private gentleman and not an officer of the king, 
how came it to pass that his slave was put in the same 
prison with the king's prisoners, and that for an offence 
usually punished in slaves with death ? 

It is further said that Joseph's master is in xxxix. 20, 
21 distinguished from the keeper of the prison into 
which Joseph was put ; whereas in xl. 3, 4, 7 they are 
identical. But the confusion here charged upon the text 
lies solely in the mind of the interpreters. The narra- 
tive is perfectly clear and consistent. The prison was in 
the house of Joseph's master (xl. 7), the captain of the 
guard (ver. 3), who had supreme control over it (ver. 4) ; 
i Biblisches Realworterbuch, Art. , Verschittene. 



JOSEPH CAST INTO PEISON (CH. XXXIX.) 459 

and this corresponds exactly with the representation 
xxxix. 20. Under him there was a subordinate keeper 
charged with its immediate oversight (xxxix. 21), who 
was so favorably disposed toward Joseph that he com- 
mitted all the prisoners into his hands and let him man- 
age everything in the prison (vs. 22, 23). This is neither 
identical with, nor contradictory to, the statement (xl. 4) 
that the captain of the guard (who is uniformly distin- 
guished from his subordinate the keeper of the prison) 
appointed Joseph to attend upon two prisoners of rank 
from the royal household. It has been said indeed that 
he waited upon them simply as Potiphar's servant, and 
that (ch. xl.) E knows nothing of Joseph's imprisonment 
related by J (ch. xxxix.) ; and, moreover, uses the term 
^■aTptt ward (xl. 3, 4, as well as xli. 10, E), instead of 
nnbn rva prison (xxxix. 20-23). But this result is only 
reached by expunging from the text without the slightest 
warrant every clause which directly declares the oppo- 
site (xl. 3b, 5b, 15b ; xli. 14 ; cf. xxxix. 20). Of course, 
if the critics are allowed to doctor the text to suit them- 
selves, they can make it say whatever they please. 

THE DIVINE NAMES 

"Wellhausen parcels the chapter between J and E, 
giving vs. 1-5, 20-23 to the former on account of the 
repeated occurrence of Jehovah, and vs. 6-19 to the 
latter because of Elohim (ver. 9), and certain other ex- 
pressions alleged to be characteristic of E. The result 
is that Joseph is in E falsely accused of a gross crime, 
but there is no intimation how the matter issues ; and in 
J his master, who had the greatest confidence in him 
and was richly blessed for his sake, puts him in prison 
for no cause whatever. And the partition is in disre- 
gard of the correspondence and manifest allusion in 



460 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

iT3 *jri J ft"T»^™iT?» bbn ver. 8 to vs. 4, 5, also of the like 
construction of TiC^S because, in vs. 9 and 23. "Well- 
hausen, moreover, finds traces of E in the J sections, and 
of J in the E section. Dillmann admits the indivisible 
character of the chapter and refers the whole of it to J ; 
but, as the two following chapters are given to E, the 
consequence is that, according to J, Joseph is put in 
prison and no information given how or why he was 
subsequently released ; the next that we hear of him he 
is viceroy of Egypt, with no explanation how it came to 
pass. The expressions commonly attributed to E, which 
are found in this chapter, are accounted for by Dillmann 
as insertions by R. This repeated occurrence of traces 
of one document in the limits of the other, and the alle- 
gation that the documents have in various particulars 
been modified by R, are simply confessions that the text 
is not what by the hypothesis of the critics it ought to 
be. Words and phrases held to be characteristic of J or 
E in one place are perversely found in the wrong docu- 
ment in another place. So without revising and correct- 
ing their own previous conclusions and adjusting their 
hypothesis to the phenomena as they find them, the 
critics insist that the document itself is wrong, and that 
R is to blame for it, the only proof of which is that it is 
impossible to carry their hypothesis through otherwise. 
It is obvious that any hypothesis, however at war with 
the facts of the case, could be bolstered up by similar 
expedients. 

Jehovah occurs eight times in this chapter (vs. 2, 3, 5, 
21, 23), and Elohim once (ver. 9). Ilgen gave the whole 
chapter to E, and claimed that the original reading was 
Elohim in every case, and that Jehovah had been intro- 
duced by the error of R or of subsequent transcribers. 
Gramberg maintained that the divine names are here no 
sure test of the writer, but that the repetitiousness, par- 



JOSEPH CAST INTO PRISON (CII. XXXIX.) 461 

ticularly of vs. 2-6, 12, 13, 20-23, proves the chapter to be 
the work of P. Kuenen 1 speaks of " the wordy style and 
constant repetitions by which this chapter is unfavor- 
ably distinguished from the other J peri copes." Dill- 
mann gives it all to J in spite of Elohim (ver. 9), which 
J could use in such a case as this (why not then in ch. 
xx. and in other similar instances?); in spite also of 
the repetitiousness, which is held to be a mark of P, but 
which here, and wherever else it suits the purposes of 
the critics, is explained by R's insertion of equivalent 
statements from a supposed parallel account by E ; and 
yet no reason is suggested why B should so overload 
these passages with what are reckoned unmeaning addi- 
tions while omitting most important portions of each 
document in turn. The fact is that the divine names 
are appropriately used, and the emphatic repetitions are 
precisely in place. Here at the very outset — first of 
Joseph's bondage and then of his imprisonment — the 
writer takes pains to impress upon his readers, by 
marked iteration, that the presence and favor of Jeho- 
vah, the guardian of the chosen race, was with Joseph, 
and gave him success in his apparently forsaken and 
helpless condition. The unseen hand, which was guid- 
ing all in the interest of his scheme of grace, is thus dis- 
tinctly disclosed ; and this is the key to all that follows. 
In ver. 9 Elohim is the proper word. Joseph is speak- 
ing to a Gentile, to whom the name of Jehovah is un- 
known ; and he refuses to commit a crime, which would 
be not only an offence against Jehovah considered in the 
light of his special relation to the chosen race, but 
against God in that general sense in which he was known 
to all mankind. 

^exateucli, p. 147. 



462 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 



MARKS OF J 

1. rpbsn made to prosper (vs. 2, 3, 23). See ch. xxiv., 
Marks" of J, No. 16. 

2. y%$ for the sake of (ver. 5). See ch. xii. 10-20, 
Marksof J, No. 6. 

3. VtfE from the time that (ver. 5) ; besides in J Ex. iv. 
10 ; v. 23 (in E connection worked over by E after J) ; 
ix. 24 (a verse divided between J and E) ; also in Josh. 
xiv. 10 E, worked over by Ed after D ; all in the Hexa- 
teuch. 

4. Tnin bring down (ver. 1). See ch. xxxvii., Marks 
of J, No. 3. 

5. H^n D^a^? according to these ivords (vs. 17, 19); 
in J besides, xxiv. 28, xliv. 7 ; all in the Hexateuch. 

The following expressions, regarded as characteristic of 
E, occur in the J text of this chapter : Ver. 4, intf rnttJ'H 
he ministered unto him, as xl. 4 ; Ex. xxiv. 13 ; xxxiii. 11 E ; 
repeatedly also in P ; ver. 6, JitfT/2 nspl nsrrP!S? comely 
and well favored, as xxix. 17 E ; ver. 7, D'na'nn IHtf TP1 
n^rs and it came to pass after these things, as xv. 1 ; xxii. 
1 ; xl. 1 ; xlviii. 1 ; Josh. xxiv. 29 E (but Gen. xxii. 20 E) ; 
ver. 21, ijpIPa 13H 1^*1 gave him favor in the eyes of, as Ex. 
iii. 21 ; xi. 3 E (but xii. 36 J). 

There are also expressions which by critical rules be- 
long to P, e.g., btf ynw hearken unto (ver. 10), which is 
claimed as a P phrase in ch. xxiii. (see ch. xxiii., Marks of 
P, No. 10) ; and b^S by, beside (vs. 10, 15, 16, 18), which 
apart from this chapter and xii. 3 E only occurs in the 
Hexateuch Lev. i. 16 ; vi. 3 (E. V., ver. 10) ; x. 12 P, and 
twice in Deuteronomy. 

Varying constructions, as itT»5rb$ WlpSPI (ver. 4) and 
Waa iln'S *Vpt>Ts (ver. 5), and of mbsn intransitive (ver. 
2), but transitive (vs. 3, 23) would be held to indicate dif- 



DREAMS OF THE BUTLER AND BAKER (CH. XL.) 463 

ferent writers, if it suited the pleasure of the critics to do 
so ; as it is they are quietly ignored. 



DKEAMS OF THE BUTLER AND BAKER (CH. XL.) 

Tuch calls attention to the intimate connection between 
this chapter and those that precede and follow. Joseph 
is here in prison, to which the foregoing narrative brought 
hiin. And ver. 3, where the officers who had offended 
the king were put " into the prison, the place where Jo- 
seph was bound," points directly to xxxix. 20, where 
Joseph was put " into the prison, the place where the 
king's prisoners were bound." The statement that he 
" was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews " (ver. 
15) is only explicable from xxxvii. 28 sqq., that he was 
carried off by the Midianite-lshmaelites, to whom his un- 
natural brothers had sold him. His assertion (ver. 15), 
" here also have I done nothing that they should put me 
into the dungeon," is only intelligible from the nar- 
rative in ch. xxxix. This chapter is not only thus tied 
to that which goes before, but also prepares the way for 
ch. xli., where (ver. 10) the imprisonment of the chief 
butler and baker in the house of the captain of the guard 
refers back to xl. 1-3 ; xli. 11-13, Joseph's interpreta- 
tion of their dreams, and their fulfilment is a brief sum- 
mary of xl. 4-22 ; xli. 14, bringing Joseph out of the 
dungeon, corresponds to his statement (xl. 15) that he was 
put into the dungeon. The chief butler's memory of his 
fault (xli. 9) recalls the fact that Joseph had asked to be 
remembered by him when he was restored to his former 
position (xl. 14), but the chief butler had forgotten him 
(ver. 23). The significant dreams of the butler and 
baker (ch. xl.), and those of Pharaoh (ch. xli.), in connec- 
tion with which Joseph figures so prominently, recall 
those of his own early childhood (xxxvii. 5-10), and 



464 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

plainly belong to the same gradually unfolding scheme. 
And Joseph's modest disclaimer of the power of inter- 
pretation, and his ascription of it solely to God (xli. 16), 
simply repeats xl. 8. 

NO DISCREPANCY 

Yet, notwithstanding this close relationship of this 
chapter in all its parts with the surrounding narrative, 
we are told that the principal ground of the partition 
here, by which this chapter is given to E, is a glaring- 
discrepancy between the account given by J and that by 
E. According to J (ch. xxxix. as expurgated) Joseph 
was sold to an unnamed Egyptian, and by him put in 
prison on a false charge preferred by his wife. How he 
came to be released and to reach the high station which 
he subsequently occupied in Egypt does not appear. 
According to E (ch. xl. as expurgated) Joseph was sold 
to Potiphar, captain of the guard ; Pharaoh's chief but- 
ler and baker were committed to Potiphar's custody, and 
kept under arrest, not in prison but in his house. And 
Joseph, who was not himself under arrest, but was act- 
ing simply in the capacity of Potiphar's servant, was ap- 
pointed to wait upon them. While doing so he inter- 
preted their dreams, which were fulfilled accordingly. 

It is unnecessary to say that these variant accounts 
are not in the text, but are purely the product of the 
critics themselves. The text must be remodelled in or- 
der to produce them. We have already seen how xxxix. 
1 has to be transformed in order to make it say that 
Joseph was sold, not to Potiphar but to some nameless 
Egyptian. It requires even more serious tampering with 
ch. xl. to eliminate the repeated references to Joseph's 
imprisonment, and the statement that the chief butler 
and baker were put in the same prison with him. Ys. 



BREAMS OF THE BUTLER AND BAKER CCH. XL.) 465 

3b, 5b, 15b, and a clause of xxxix. 20 (the place where 
the king's prisoners were bound), as well as of xli. 11 
(and they brought him hastily out of the dungeon), must 
all be erased by the critics before they can get rid of the 
explicit statements which directly contradict that view of 
the affair which they undertake to obtrude upon this 
chapter. It is not surprising that Gramberg, in propos- 
ing these erasures, exjDected his readers to be surprised 
by such a free handling of the text and perversion of its 
meaning. 

The charge that the clauses in question were insertions 
by K has no other foundation than the desire to create 
a discrepancy, which is impossible without removing 
them. That the prison was in the house of the captain 
of the guard (ver. 3) is in accordance with modern orien- 
tal usage. Thus Chardin says: "The Eastern prisons 
are not public buildings erected for that purpose, but a 
part of the house in which their criminal judges dwell. 
As the governor and provost of a town, or the captain of 
the watch, imprison such as are accused in their own 
houses, they set apart a canton of them for that purpose, 
when they are put into these offices, and choose for the 
jailer the most proper person they can find of their do- 
mestics." ! That vs. 1, 5 have " the butler and the baker 
of the king of Egypt," while the rest of the chapter has 
" chief butler," "chief baker," and " Pharaoh," is no good 
reason for attributing the former to E, unless on the as- 
sumption that a writer cannot occasionally vary his ex- 
pressions, especially as ver. 1 is indispensable as supply- 
ing the reason for ver. 2, and the chief butler is likewise 
simply called " butler " (ver. 13), and his office simply 
" butlership " (ver. 23). 

In addition to the alleged variance between this chap- 
ter and the preceding, which has already been consid- 

1 Harmer's Observations, ii., p. 273. 
30 ' 



466 THE GENEKATIONS OP JACOB 

ered, the following reasons are adduced for referring it 
to E : " The dreams," since it is arbitrarily assumed that 
all dreams must belong to E ; 1 "I was stolen away " (ver. 
15), but this is not inconsistent with his being sold by 
his brothers, who had no right to dispose of him ; " the 
connection of ch. xli. with xl.," which is freely conceded, 
but involves no discrepancy with, or separation from, ch. 
xxxix. No argument is offered from language but " the 
avoidance of the verbal suffix which distinguishes E 
from J " (vs. 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 15, 17, 19) ; Dillmann here 
quietly ignores the fact that he refused to admit this as a 
criterion in ch. xxxvii. " And it came to pass after these 
things," which is allowed to remain in ver. 1, after the 
rest of the verse is erased as an insertion by R, cannot 
be a decisive mark of E in this place after having been 
found in a J section (xxxix. 7). It can scarcely*. be 
thought that such arguments are of any weight in favor 
of critical partition. 

NO ANACHRONISM 

Nor is there an anachronism in the phrase " land of 
the Hebrews " (ver. 15). " Abram the Hebrew " was the 
head of a powerful clan (xiv. 13, 14), recognized as such 
by native tribes of Canaan (xxiii. 6), and his friendship 
sought by the king of the Philistines (xxi. 22, sqq.). 
Isaac's greatness is similarly described (xxvi. 13 seq., 26 
sqq.). The prince and people of Shechem were will- 
ing to submit to circumcision for the sake of friendly in- 
tercourse and trade with Jacob, and Jacob's sons avenged 
the wrong done their sister by the destruction of the city 
(ch. xxxiv.). The Hebrews had been in Canaan for two 
centuries, and their presence was influential and widely 
known. There is nothing strange, therefore, in the fact 
1 See cli. xx. , Marks of E, No. 4. 



pharaoh's dreams (cii. xlt.) 467 

that Potiphar's wife calls Joseph a Hebrew (xxxix. 14, 
17), or that he could speak of the country whence he 
carae as the land of the Hebrews. 



diction . 

The one divine name in this chapter, Elohim (ver. 8), 
is doubly appropriate. It is in an address to Gentiles, 
and there is an obvious contrast between man and God ; 
interpretations belong to the latter, not to the former. 

Knobel, who gave chs. xl., xli. to P, notes the follow- 
ing words as characteristic of P : C]2jJ was wroth (xl. 2 ; 
sli. 10), besides in the Hesateuch Ex. xvi. 20 ; Lev. x. 6, 
16 ; Num. xvi. 22 ; xxxi. 14 P ; Josh. xxii. 18 E ; also Deut. 
i. 34 ; ix. 7, 8, 19, 22 ; the corresponding noun, qs;}? wrath, 
occurs in the Hesateuch Num. i. 53 ; xvii. 11 (E. V., svi. 
46) ; sviii. 5 ; Josh. is. 20 P ; Josh. ssii. 20 E ; Deut. ssis. 
27 (E. V., ver. 28). bo basket (si. 16-18) occurs besides 
in the Hesateuch Es. ssis. 3, 23, 32 ; Lev. viii. 2, 26, 31 ; 
Num. vi. 15, 17, 19 P. |3 station (si. 13 ; sli. 13) occurs 
besides in the Hesateuch only in application to the base 
of the laver (Es. sss. 18, and repeatedly, P). Dillmann 
passes these quietly by without remark. 

pharaoh's dreams (ch. xli.) 

Tuch shows that as ch. si. was both in general and in 
particular preparatory for ch. sli., so this latter is indis- 
pensable for all that follows. It is here related how Jo- 
seph, who was chosen of God for high ends, was raised 
from the prison to the office of vizier ; and the rest of 
the book (ch. slii.-slvii.) turns upon Joseph's services 
to the people and the king, and upon the predicted fam- 
ine which brought about the migration of Jacob and his 
family to Egypt. All this is quite unintelligible without 



468 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

the narrative which lies here before us. Add the specific 
references to ch. xl. previously pointed out, the etymolo- 
gies of the names Manasseh and Ephraim (vs. 51, 52), af- 
ter the manner of ch. xxx., and the birth of these sons of 
Joseph to prepare the way for their adoption by Jacob 
(ch. xlviii.) where xlviii. 5, " born before I came unto 
thee into Egypt," plainly points back to xli. 50. 

GROUNDS OF PARTITION 

The following reasons are assigned by Dillmann for 
assigning this chapter to E : The significant dreams and 
the power of interpreting them, which are of no more 
weight here than in ch. xl.; that Joseph is called "ser- 
vant to the captain of the guard " (ver. 12), but he was 
also a prisoner (ver. 14), which is evaded after the usual 
critical fashion by erasing from the text the words " and 
they brought him hastily out of the dungeon," as an in- 
sertion from a hypothetical parallel of J ; but even then 
his shaving himself and changing his raiment are an al- 
lusion to his prison attire, or why are not the same things 
mentioned when others are presented before the king ? 
The references to ch. xl. (xli. 10-13, cf. xl. 1 sqq. ; xli. 
16, cf. xl. 8), and unusual words common to both chap- 
ters (ntlS interpret, p'^riS interpretation, )3 station, p££ was 
wroth), point to the same author, but in no way imply 
that he was not the author of ch. xxxix. and xliii. as well. 
Elohim in vs. 16, 25, 32, 38, 39 is in language addressed 
to Pharaoh or used by him ; vs. 51, 52 are the only in- 
stances in which Jehovah could with any propriety be 
substituted for it, and even there Elohim is equally ap- 
propriate, for the reference is to God's providential bless- 
ings, such as men in general may share, rather than to 
specific favor granted to one of the chosen race. ^"EPbzi 
apart from (vs. 16, 44), but once besides in Genesis (xiv. 



phaeaoh's dreams (ch. xli.) 469 

24, which is referred by Dillruann to E, but by the ma- 
jority of critics to an independent source) ; and occurring 
twice more in the Hexateuch (Num. v. 20 ; Josh. xxii. 19 
P). The arguments for considering this chapter a part 
of the document E are accordingly lame and impotent 
enough. 

We are further informed that this chapter is not a unit 
as it stands. It is essential for the critics to establish, if 
possible, the existence of a parallel narrative by J, which 
may have filled the gap in that document between Jo- 
seph's imprisonment and his elevation. Accordingly 
stress is laid upon some slight verbal changes in repeat- 
ing Pharaoh's dreains, especially the words added to the 
description of the lean kine (ver. 19), " such as I never 
saw in all the land of Egypt for badness," and (ver. 21), 
" when they had eaten up the fat kine it could not be 
known that they had eaten them ; but they were still ill- 
favored as at the beginning." But if this is to show that 
J gave a parallel account of the dreams, it annuls the 
criterion, upon which the critics steadfastly insist, that E 
aloue records dreams. A vigorous search is also made 
for so-called doublets. Wherever the writer does not con- 
tent himself with a bald and meagre statement of what he 
is recording, but feels impelled to enlarge and dwell upon 
it in order to give his thought more adequate expression, 
the amplifications or repetitions which he employs are 
seized upon as though they were extraneous additions 
imported into E's original narrative by B, from an im- 
aginary parallel account by J, just as a like fulness of 
expression in other passages is at the pleasure of the 
critics declared to be indicative of the verbose and rep- 
etitious style of P. 

The dreams (vs. 2-7) are repeated (vs. 18-24) in al- 
most identical terms, only in a very few instances equiv- 
alent expressions are employed, viz. : ^ap/orwi (vs. 18, 



470 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

19), for T\$y2 appearance (vs. 2, 3), but see xxix. 17 E ; 
xxxix. 6 J; pi lean (ver. 19), for p^ thin (ver. 3) ; xbnfull 
(ver. 22), for 8"H| /«2 (ver. 5), but see ver. 7. The al- 
leged doublets are ver. 31 parallel to ver. 30b; ver. 34 
into? make, parallel to np&^ appoint ; ver. 35b to 35a ; 
vs. 41, 43b, 44, to ver. 40 (Joseph's rule is stated four 
times, so that repetition cannot be escaped by parcelling 
it between E and J) ; ver. 49 to 48 ; vs. 55, 56a, to 54b 
(the universality of the famine is repeated three times, in- 
cluding ver. 57b). It is also affirmed that the following 
expressions are indicative of J : nsp see (ver. 41) as xxvii. 
27; xxxi. 50; xxxix. 14; nWMa ptfi 13 . . . D'H bTp 
as the sand of the sea, for it ivas ivithout number (ver 49), 
as xxii. 17 E ; xxxii. 13 (E. Y. ver. 12) J. While it is 
claimed that these indicate two narrators, Dillmann ad- 
mits that in several instances there are no criteria by 
which to distinguish which is E and which J. The fur- 
ther occurrence of words in this chapter, which according 
to critical rules should belong to P, e.g., Dblfi magician 
(vs. 8, 24), in the Pentateuch besides only Ex. vii. 11, 22 ; 
viii. 3, 14, 15 (E. V., vs. 7, 18, 19); ix. 11, all P; fhgft 
store (ver. 36), besides in the Old Testament only Lev. 
v. 21, 23 (E. V., vi. 2, 4) P; £jgjp handful (ver. 47), be- 
sides in the Old Testament only Lev. ii. 2 ; v. 12 ; vi. 8 
(E. V., ver. 15), and the corresponding verb only Lev. ii. 
2 ; v. 12 ; Num. v. 26, all P, leads one to distrust crite- 
ria in other cases, which the critics can thus disregard 
at pleasure. 

On the whole, then, the critical partition of chs. 
xxxvii.-xli. rests upon alleged inconsistencies in the nar- 
rative, which plainly do not exist as the text now stands, 
but which the critics themselves create by arbitrary era- 
sures and forced interpretations. The literary proof of- 
fered of the existence of different documents is of the 
scantiest kind. There are no indications of varying die- 



471 

tion of any account. And the attempt to bridge the 
chasms in the documents by means of a supposed paral- 
lel narrative, from which snatches have been preserved 
by R, attributes an unaccountable procedure to him, and 
falls to pieces at once upon examination. 

There are three staple arguments by which the critics 
attempt to show that there was, in the sources from which 
R is conjectured to have drawn, a second narrative par- 
allel to that in the existing text. Each of these is built 
upon a state of facts antagonistic to the hypothesis, 
which they ingeniously seek to wrest in its favor by as- 
suming the truth of the very thing to be proved. 

1. Facts which are essential to the narrative could 
not, it is said, have failed to appear in either document ; 
it must be presumed, therefore, that each narrator re- 
corded them. 

But the perpetual recurrence of such serious gaps in 
the so-called documents, which the critics are by every 
device laboring to construct, tends rather to show that no 
such documents ever really had any separate existence. 
That these gaps are due to omissions by R is pure as- 
sumption, with no foundation but the unproved hypothesis 
which it is adduced to support ; an assumption, moreover, 
at variance with the conduct repeatedly attributed to R in 
other places, where to relieve other complications of the 
hypothesis he is supposed to have scrupulously preserved 
unimportant details from one of his sources, even though 
they were superfluous repetitions of what had already 
been extracted from another. 

2. When words and phrases which the critics regard 
as characteristic of one document are found, as they fre- 
quently are, in sections which they assign to the other, 
it is claimed that R has mixed the texts of the different 
documents. 

But the obvious and natural conclusion from the fact 



472 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

referred to is, that what are affirmed to be characteristic 
words of different documents are freely used by the same 
writer. The allegation that B had anything to do with 
the matter is an assumption which has no other basis 
than the hypothesis which it is brought to support. It 
is plain that any conceit whatever could be carried 
through successfully if every deviation from its require- 
ments was sufficiently explained by referring it to B. 

3. Whenever a thought is repeated or dwelt upon for 
the sake of giving it more emphatic expression, the 
critics scent a doublet, affirming that E has appended to 
the statement in one document the corresponding state- 
ment contained in the other. 

But here again the agency of E is pure assumption, 
based on the hypothesis in whose interest it is alleged. 
That a writer should use more amplitude and fulness 
in describing matters of special moment is quite intelli- 
gible. But why a compiler like E should encumber the 
narrative by reduplicating what he has already drawn 
from one source by the equivalent language of another, 
or why, if this is his method in the instances adduced, he 
does not consistently pursue it in others, does not appear. 
Why should he leave serious gaps in matters of real mo- 
ment, while so solicitous of preserving petty details, 
which add nothing to what has been said already ? 

What are so confidently paraded as traces or indica- 
tions of some missing portion of a critical document are 
accordingly rather to be esteemed indications that the 
documents of the critics are a chimera. 

On the assumption that it is peculiar to P to record 
ages Kautzsch assigns to this document ver. 46a, " And 
Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before Pha- 
raoh king of Egypt." Dillmann gives it the entire verse, 
as also, though with some hesitation, the statement of 
Joseph's age at an earlier period, in xxxvii. 2. Isolated 



Jacob's sons go to egypt (ch. xlii.-xliv.) 473 

clauses are thus rent from their connection, though there 
is nothing in P to which to attach them, and though their 
entire significance lies in the light which they shed upon 
the intervening narrative from which they are arbitrarily 
separated, whose duration it is their province to indicate. 
Dillmann himself in his first edition contended that the 
numbers in these verses did not belong to P. And the 
critical assumption on which this assignment rests is set 
aside by Dillmann as well as others in Gen. 1. 26 ; Josh, 
xiv. 7, 10 ; xxiv. 29, where the record of the ages of Joseph, 
Caleb, and Joshua is attributed to E. Noldeke, followed 
by Schrader, Kayser, Kuenen, and others, denies that 
either of the verses in question belong to P, and finds in 
xlvi. 6, 7 the first extract from that document in this sec- 
tion of Genesis. Dillmann's suggestion that the full 
phrase, " Pharaoh king of Egypt " (ver. 46), occurs again 
(Ex. vi. 11, 13, 27, 29 ; xiv. 8 P) is of little force, because 
" Pharaoh " alone is uniformly used in all the passages 
ascribed to P except the verses just named, where the 
full phrase is emphatically employed, as is evident from 
the iteration in Ex. vi. 

joukneys of Jacob's sons to egypt (ch. xlii.-xliv.) 

The critics tell us that ch. xlii., which records the first 
journey of Jacob's sons to Egypt, is by E, and chs. xliii., 
xliv., their second journey, is by J. Yet the second jour- 
ney implies the first, and is filled throughout with nu- 
merous and explicit allusions to it. It was (xliii. 2) after 
they had eaten up the corn already brought that their 
father urged them to go again. All then turns upon 
Joseph's having required them to bring Benjamin (xliii. 
3-11 ; cf. xlii. 15, 16, 20, 34). Jacob's solicitude for Ben- 
jamin is the same, xlii. 4 as ver. 38 ; xliv. 29. Kepeated 
reference is made to the money returned in their sacks 



474 THE GENERATION'S OF JACOB 

(xliii. 12, 15, 18-23 ; xliv. 8 ; cf. xlii. 25, 28, 35), and to 
Simeon's detention (xliii. 14, 23 ; cf. xlii. 19, 24). Ja- 
cob's sense of bereavement (xliii. 14) corresponds with 
previous statements (xlii. 36 ; xxxvii. 34, 35). Joseph 
speaks of their father and youngest brother, of whom 
they had previously told him (xliii. 27-29 ; cf . xlii. 13, 
32). They bow before him in fulfilment of his dreams 
(xliii. 26, 28 ; xliv. 14 ; cf. xxxvii. 10, xlii. 6, 9). Joseph 
orders their money to be replaced in their sacks (xliv. 1), 
as before (xlii. 25). And Judah's touching address to 
Joseph (xliv. 18-34) recites anew the circumstances of 
their former visit, together with their father's grief at the 
loss of Joseph (cf. xliv. 28 with xxxvii. 33). It is difficult 
to see how two parts of the same narrative could be more 
closely bound together. 

Nevertheless it is maintained that all these allusions 
to what took place in the former journey are not to the 
record given of it in ch. xlii., but to a quite different nar- 
rative ; that a careful consideration of chs. xliii., xliv. will 
show that they are not the sequel of ch. xlii., but of a 
parallel account by J, which no longer exists indeed, in- 
asmuch as R did not think fit to preserve it, but which 
can be substantially reconstructed from the hints and in- 
timations in these chapters themselves, and must have 
varied from that of E in several particulars. R is here, 
as always, the scapegoat on whose head these incongrui- 
ties are laid, though no very intelligible reason can be 
given why he should have constructed this inimitable 
history in such a disjointed manner. And it is likewise 
strange that the discrepancies between the two narratives, 
so strenuously urged by Wellhausen and Dillmann, seem 
to have escaped the usually observant eye of Hupfelcl, 
who makes no mention of them. As Iigen, DeWette, and 
Gramberg had raised the same difficulties before, Hup- 
feld's silence can only mean that he did not deem them 



Jacob's sons go to egypt (ch. xlii.-xliv.) 475 

worth repeating. Knobel, though ready enough to under- 
take a critical division elsewhere, insists on the unity of 
chs. xlii.-xlv., and maintains that the charge of inconsist- 
encies is unfounded. The same judgment, one would 
think, must be formed by any candid person. 

NO DISCREPANCY 

The alleged inconsistencies are the following : 
1. In E Reuben is the speaker (xlii. 22), and it is he 
who becomes surety for Benjamin's safe return (ver. 37). 
In J Judah is the surety for Benjamin, and takes the 
lead throughout (xliii. 3-5, 8-10 ; xliv. 14 sqq.). 

But these acts and offices do not exclude one another. 
Why should not more than one of Jacob's sons have 
sought to influence him in a case of such extreme im- 
portance to them all ? If Reuben had pleaded without 
effect, why should not Judah renew the importunity, as 
the necessity became more urgent ? It is here precisely 
as with the separate proposals of Reuben and Judah 
(xxxvii. 22, 26), which, as we have seen, the critics like- 
wise seek without reason to array against each other. 
Reuben's allusion (xlii. 22) to his interference in that in- 
stance implies that his remonstrance was not heeded, and 
that his brothers were responsible for Joseph's death, 
which he sought to prevent. As the critics represent the 
matter, this was not the case. At Reuben's instance they 
put Joseph in a pit instead of shedding his blood. Now 
if, as the critics will have it, Midianite merchants found 
him there and carried him off in the absence of all the 
brothers, the others had no more to do with his disap- 
pearance than Reuben had. Reuben's unresisted charge 
that the rest were guilty of Joseph's death, in which he 
himself was not implicated, finds no explanation upon 
the critics' version of the story. It is only when the 



476 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

sundered parts of the narrative are brought together, and 
it is allowed to stand in its complete and proper form, 
that Joseph was sold to the Ishmaelites at the suggestion 
of Judah, while Keuben supposed him to be still in the 
pit and hoped to return him to his father, that his words 
have any meaning. No difficulty is created by Keuben 's 
speaking of his blood as required. The brothers im- 
agined him to be no longer living. Judah, who coun- 
selled the sale, speaks of him as dead (xliv. 20 cf. xlii. 
32). By selling him into bondage they had, as they 
thought, procured his death. 

Judah's prominence in ch. xliv. is due entirely to his 
suretyship for Benjamin, solicited and granted in ch. 
xliii. As Benjamin was endangered by the discovery of 
the cup, it was incumbent upon him to seek to obtain 
his release. 

Wellhausen contends that xlii. 38 is not the reply to 
Beuben's offer to be a surety (ver. 37), inasmuch as this 
latter is E's parallel to xliii. 8-10 J, and instead of being 
refused it must in E's account have been accepted. He 
insists that E's narrative is abruptly broken off at xlii. 
37, and left incomplete. The response made to Keuben 
is not recorded ; it was doubtless the same in substance 
that J reports as made to Judah (xliii. 11 sqq.). Instead 
of this K introduces an irrelevant verse (xlii. 38), a dis- 
located fragment of J, which in its original connection 
was a reply to something quite distinct from the words 
by which it is here preceded. It must have come after 
the equivalent of xliv. 26, and have stood between xliii. 
2 and 3. This is simply to manufacture facts in the face 
of the plain declarations of the text itself, which leave no 
doubt as to the answers respectively given to Keuben 
and to Judah. All this confusion, where in reality no 
confusion exists, results from the abortive attempt to 
create a parallel narrative out of nonentity. The critics 



JACOB'S SONS GO TO EGYPT (CH. XLII.-XLIV.) 477 

are under the necessity of assigning xlii. 38 to J, since 
the words " if mischief befall him ye shall bring down 
my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave " are identical 
with xliv. 29, 31, .and must obviously be from the same 
writer. This, however, does not demonstrate that the 
verse is out of place, but simply that chs. xlii. and xliv. 
are from one pen. 

In fact the agency attributed to Reuben and Judah 
affords a plea, not for the critical partition of these chap- 
ters but for their unity. The position accorded to each 
is consistent throughout, and corresponds with the rep- 
resentation made of them in the blessing of Jacob in ch. 
xlix. Eeuben, as the first-born, was charged with a special 
responsibility, which led him to come forward at each 
crisis, while the weakness of his character rendered his 
interference ineffectual. He did not accomplish his 
purpose of rescuing Joseph. His father, whom he had 
grievously wronged, would not trust him with Benjamin. 
Judah's bold and energetic nature fitted him to grasp the 
reins which Eeuben was incompetent to hold. He led 
the brothers in their passionate determination to rid 
themselves of Joseph and nullify his ambitious dreams. 
Sobered by the discipline of years he rose to the occa- 
sion, when a new peril threatened his father in the loss 
of his favorite Benjamin, and he assumed the leader- 
ship with an unselfish courage and a tenderness of heart 
which marked him out as one fitted to rule, and which 
deservedly won for him the position among his brothers 
indicated by his dying father. Plainly we have here not 
two separate sagas, each glorifying a favorite son of 
Jacob, but one self-consistent historical account, in which 
both appear in their proper characters. 

It is further claimed that — 

2. J knows nothing of Simeon's detention related by 
E (xlii. 19, 24). Judah nowhere alludes to it in arguing 



478 THE GENERATIONS OE JACOB 

with his father (xliii. 3-10), when he might have urged 
the prospect of releasing Simeon as an additional reason 
for their speedy return ; nor does he refer to it in his 
address to Joseph (xliv. 18-34). 

But the supreme interest on both these occasions cen- 
tred about Benjamin. Would his father consent to let 
him go ? Would Joseph allow him to return to his 
father ? These were the questions quite apart from the 
case of Simeon, so that in dealing with them there was 
no occasion to allude to him. But Simeon is directly 
spoken of twice in ch. xliii. When Jacob is starting 
them on their return he prays (ver. 14) " God Almighty 
give you mercy before the man, that he may release unto 
you your other brother and Benjamin." And (ver. 23) 
when they reach the house of Joseph the steward 
" brought Simeon out unto them." These explicit allu- 
sions to Simeon's imprisonment are evaded by declar- 
ing them to be interpolations from E. The argument for 
suppressing them may be fairly stated thus : Because 
Simeon is not referred to where there is no occasion for 
speaking of him, therefore the mention which is made of 
him in the proper place cannot be an integral part of 
the text. In other words, whatever the critics desire to 
eliminate from a passage is eliminated without further 
ceremony by declaring it spurious. If it does not accord 
with their theory, that is enough ; no other proof is nec- 
essary. 

Dillmann's contention that xlii. 38 is not the direct 
reply to ver. 37, because Simeon is not spoken of in it, 
is futile on its face; for as Reuben makes no allusion 
to him in his proposal there is no reason why Jacob 
should do so in his answer. Simeon was kept a pris- 
oner to insure the return of the rest, having been se- 
lected doubtless because he was second in age. Joseph 
may naturally have passed over Reuben because of the 



JACOB S SONS GO TO EGYPT (CH. XLII.-XLIV.) 479 

kindly disposition which he had manifested toward him- 
self. 

3. " In ch. xlii. Joseph will, by detaining Simeon, com- 
pel the brothers at all events to come back again with or 
without Benjamin ; in chs. xliii., xliv., on the contrary, 
he forbids them to come back if Benjamin is not with 
them. In ch. xlii. they are treated as spies ; at first they 
are all put into prison together, and then only set free 
on bail to bring Benjamin, and thus confirm the truth of 
their declarations. But in chs. xliii., xliv. they do not 
go back to Egypt from the moral obligation of clearing 
themselves and releasing Simeon, but wait till the corn 
is all gone and the famine constrains them. The charge 
that they were spies was not brought against the broth- 
ers at all according to xliii. 5-7 ; xliv. 18 sqq. ; it was not 
this which induced them, as in ch. xlii., to explain to Jo- 
seph who and whence they really were, and thus involun- 
tarily to make mention of Benjamin, but Joseph directly 
asked them, Is } T our father yet alive? have ye another 
brother? and then commanded them not to come into 
his presence again without him." l 

All this is only an attempt to create a conflict where 
there is none. One part of a transaction is set in oppo- 
sition to another equally belonging to it. One motive is 
arrayed against another, as though they were incompati- 
ble, when both were alike operative. When Joseph told 
his brothers that they must verify their words by Benja- 
min's coming or be considered spies (xlii. 15, 16, 20, 34), 
he in effect told them that they should not see his face 
again unless Benjamin was with them. They delay their 
return until the corn was all used up, because nothing 
less than imminent starvation will induce Jacob, who has 
already lost two sons, to risk the loss of his darling. 
That Joseph directly interrogated them about their father 
i Wellliauseii, Comp. d. Hexateuchs, p. 55. 



480 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

and brother is not expressly said in ch. xlii. ; but as the 
entire interview is not narrated in detail, there is nothing 
to forbid it. The critics do not themselves insist on the 
absolute conformity of related passages, unless they have 
some end to answer by it. The words of Reuben, as re- 
ported xlii. 22, are not identical with those ascribed to 
him xxxvii. 22 ; and nothing is said in ch. xxxvii. of 
Joseph's beseeching his brothers in the anguish of his 
soul, as in xlii. 21. Jacob's sons, in rehearsing their ex- 
perience to their father (xlii. 29-34) omit his first propo- 
sition to keep all of them but one, and their three days' 
imprisonment, and add that if they prove true they might 
traffic in the land. Judah, in relating the words of his 
father (xliv. 27-29), does not limit himself to language 
which, according to xliii. 2 sqq., he uttered on the occa- 
sion referred to. In these instances the critics find no 
discrepancies within the limits of the same document, 
but count it sufficient that the general sense is preserved. 
If they would interpret with equal candor elsewhere 
their imaginary difficulties would all melt away. 

4. A discrepancy is alleged regarding the money found 
in the sacks. According to xliii. 21 J the discovery was 
made at the lodging on their way home, but according 
to xlii. 35 E, after their arrival home, and in the presence 
of their father. 

But there is no necessary variance here. The state- 
ment in xlii. 27, 28 is that one of the brothers, on open- 
ing his sack at the lodging, found his money, and reported 
the fact to the rest, whereat they were greatly alarmed. 
Now, the critics argue if one opened his sack to give his 
ass provender, must not the rest have done the same, 
and made the same discovery ? and especially as they 
were so agitated by the fact that one had found his money 
in his sack, would not the rest have made instant search 
in theirs ? Dillmann further pleads that Ti^n the one, in 



Jacob's sons go to egypt (ch. xlii.-xliv.) 481 

ver. 27, properly means the first in order, implying that 
the others subsequently did the same. And Wellhausen 
tells us that E, has omitted a clause, which must origi- 
nally have stood in these verses, "then the others also 
opened their sacks, and behold, every man's money was 
in his sack, their money in full weight." These verses, 
it is claimed, are in exact correspondence with xliii. 21, 
and belong not to E's, but to J's, account. This con- 
jectural reasoning and this hypothetical change of text 
are of course of no account. But if the critics are cor- 
rect in the interpretation which they put upon these 
verses, as implying, even though they do not expressly 
state, that the discovery of his money by one led to its 
discovery by all the rest at the inn, there is not the 
shadow of a discrepancy in the entire record. This is 
in fact the explanation adopted by Matthew Poole in 
order to harmonize the whole account. He thus com- 
ments upon the words in ver. 27, " one of them opened 
his sack : " " And after him the rest, by his example and 
information did so, as is affirmed xliii. 21, and not de- 
nied here." And then, when they reached home and 
emptied their sacks in the presence of their father, and 
they and he saw the bundles of money, " their fear re- 
turned upon them with more violence." 

If, however, xlii. 27 is to be understood as meaning 
that only one happened upon the discovery of his money 
at the inn, and that the others, having no occasion to 
open their sacks, since Joseph had ordered that provision 
be given them for the way (ver. 25), did not find that 
theirs had been restored till they were at their journey's 
end, it will still supply no argument for critical partition. 
The discrepancy, such as it is, lies between xlii. 27, 28, 
and xliii. 22, both of which are referred to J. It amounts 
simply to this : in reporting their discovery of the money 
to Joseph's steward the brothers do not detail the suc- 
31 



482 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

cessive steps by which they came to a full knowledge of 
the case. The one important fact was that they all 
found their money in their sacks. That part was found 
at one time, and part at another, was a subordinate mat- 
ter on which no stress need be laid. So in speaking of 
the first discovery made at the inn they include in it all 
that they afterward learned. Their statement, though 
not minutely accurate, was yet for their purpose sub- 
stantially true. 

THE DIVINE NAMES 

The divine names afford no pretext for the partition of 
these chapters. Elohim occurs once in E (xlii. 18), and 
three times in J (xlii. 28 ; xliii. 29 ; xliv. 16). And El 
Shaddai, God Almighty, which is regarded as a peculiar 
characteristic of P, occurs in xliii. 14 J. B is invoked to 
relieve the difficulty in xlii. 28 and xliii. 14 ; while in 
xliii. 29 ; xliv. 16, the critical principle is abandoned, 
which traces the occurrence of Elohim to the usage of 
the particular document in which it is found and it is 
confessed that its employment is due to the distinctive 
usage of the word itself. These names are in every case 
appropriately used. Jacob commends his sons to the 
omnipotent care of him who alone could effectually aid 
in his helpless extremity (xliii. 14). As Joseph was act- 
ing the part of an Egyptian, Elohim is the proper word 
when he is speaking (xlii. 18 ; xliii. 29), or is spoken to 
(xliv. 16) ; even when he refers specifically to the God of 
the chosen race he uses a periphrasis instead of employ- 
ing the name Jehovah (xliii. 23). Contrast with this the 
critical claim in xxvi. 28, 29, that J uses Jehovah even 
when Gentiles are the speakers. In xlii. 28 the brothers, 
recognizing in what has taken place the divine ordering 
as contrasted with merely human agency, say to one an- 
other, What is this that God (Elohim) hath done to us ? 



Jacob's sons go to egypt (ch. xlii-xliv.) 483 



MARKS OF J AND E 

1. tihS&n fodder, is attributed to J, though it is the 
propel word to express this idea, and cannot be regarded 
as characterizing any particular writer. It is used four 
times in the Hexateuch, twice in this narrative (xlii. 27, 
cut out of an E connection and given to J ; xliii. 24 J), 
and twice in the story of Abraham's servant (xxiv. 25, 
32, J). 

2. "jib^a lodging-place, is claimed as belonging to J. It 
occurs twice in this narrative (xlii. 27, cut out of an E 
context and given to J ; xliii. 21 J), and in two passages 
besides in the Hexateuch (Ex. iv. 24 ; Josh. iv. 3, 8). 

3. nnPfiSS sack, a word peculiar to this narrative, is 
claimed for J, while E's word for the same is said to be pir. 
The latter properly denotes the coarse material from 
which sacks and the dress of mourners were made, and is 
then applied to anything made of this material, rnPEX 
from nrna to expand, is the specific term for a bag or sack. 
The grain sacks are first mentioned xlii. 25, where the 
general term *b2 vessel, is used together with piz? ; then in 
vs. 27, 28, pir together with nnp£S ; in ver. 35 pir alone? 
and thenceforward nnnptf, as the proper and specific 
term, is steadfastly adhered to in the rest of the narrative 
throughout chs. xliii. and xliv. That this affords no 
argument for sundering vs. 27, 28 from their present 
connection and assigning them to another writer is ob- 
vious, since both pte and nnn^tf occur there together ; 
moreover, Elohim in the last clause of ver. 28 forbids it 
being assigned to J. Dillmann evades these difficulties 
by assuming that these verses have been manipulated by 
E, who inserted pt 1 and transposed the unwelcome clause 
from its original position after ver. 35. What cannot a 
critic prove with the help of K ? 



484 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

4. 175 lad, as Benjamin is called by J (xliii. 8 ; xliv. 
22-34) ; but E uses instead lb? child (xlii. 22 E, said of 
Joseph at the time when he was sold). J, however, like- 
wise calls Benjamin *jb? (xliv. 20), and uses the same 
word repeatedly elsewhere, e.g., xxxii. 23 ; xxxiii. 1-14 
(9 times) ; while E uses n^D with equal frequency (xiv. 24 ; 
xxi. 12-20 (6 times) ) ; ch. xxii. (5 times), etc. See ch. xxi. 
1-21, Marks of E, No. 6. 

5. Israel (xliii. 6, 8, 14 J) ; but Jacob, xlii. 1, 4, 29, 36, 
E; also sons of Israel, xlii. 5 E. See ch. xxxvii., Marks 
of J, No. 1. 

6. T2Ttfn the man, said of Joseph (xliii. 3, 5, 6, 7, 13, 
14 ; xliv. 26 J), while E says y lijn ^8 tthan the man, 
the lord of the land (xlii. 30, 33). The full phrase was 
necessary at first in order to indicate the person intend- 
ed; its constant repetition afterward would be cum- 
brous. In like manner "the man who was over Joseph's 
house " (xliii. 16, 19) is simply called " the man " (ver. 
17). The plural construct ^S is used in a singular 
sense but once besides in the Pentateuch (xxxix. 20), 
where it is attributed to J. 

7. "inbn rP2 prison, is used by J (xxxix. 20-23), while 
E has maEE loard (xlii. 17, 19), as art. 3, 4, 7 ; xli. 10 ; but 
the former also occurs in an E context (xl. 3, 5), only the 
clause containing it is cut out and assigned to J because 
of this very phrase. 

8. npbs all of them, the prolonged form of the feminine 
plural suffix is used by E (xlii. 36), as xxi. 29 ; xxxi. 6 ; xli. 
21 ; but J has the same Hs'arP for fan? xxx. 41. 

9. mi provision (xlii. 25 E), as xlv. 21 ; Josh. ix. 11 ; 
but so J xxvii. 3 ; Ex. xii. 39 ; all in Hexateuch except 
Josh. i. 11 D. 

10. TT$ distress (xlii. 21 bis E) ; but so J Deut. xxxi. 
17, 21 ; all in Hexateuch. 

11. n?T remember (xlii. 9 E), as xl. 14 bis, 23 ; xli. 9 ; 



Jacob's sons go to egypt (ch. xlii. -xliv. ) 485 

Ex. xx. 8 (?), 24 ; xxiii. 13 ; but so J Ex. xiii. 3 ; xxxii. 
13 ; Lev. xxvi. 42 (three times), 45 (?), Num. xi. 5 ; xv. 
39, 40 ; P, Geu. viii. 1 ; ix. 15, 16 ; xix. 29 ; xxx. 22 ; Ex. 
ii. 24; vi. 5 ; Num. v. 15 (?) ; x. 9 (?) ; aU in Pentateuch 
except Deuteronomy. 

12. bDtf food, is claimed for J (xliii. 2, 4, 20, 22 ; xliv. 
1, 25) in distinction from -Q grain (E xli. 35, 49 ; xlii. 3, 
25 ; xlv. 23) ; but the former occurs in E xli. 35 bis, 36, 
48 bis ; xlii. 7, 10 ; xlvii. 24, unless the clauses contain- 
ing it are arbitrarily severed from their context. 

13. *TP go doivn, and THitt bring doivn (into Egypt), are 
said to be used by J, while E has fcTin bring. See ch. 
xxxvii., Marks of J, No. 3. 

14. *DD heavy (xliii. 1) ; mostly referred by rule to J, 
even when it has to be cut out of an E connection for 
the purpose, as Gen. xli. 31; Ex. xix. 16; Num. xx. 20; 
yet it is given to E Ex. xvii. 12 ; xviii. 18. So, too, the 
corresponding verb is mostly assigned to J, and is in 
Ex. v. 9 cut out of an E connection for the purpose ; it 
is, however, given to E Num. xxii. 15, 17, 37 ; and to P 
Ex. xiv. 4, 17, 18 ; Lev. x. 3. 

15. nbs with b and the infinitive made an end (xliii. 2 J). 
See ch. xxvi. 34-xxviii. 9, Marks of J, No. 2. 

16. txfip a little (xliii. 2, 11 ; xliv. 25 J) ; besides in J 
xviii. 4 ; xxiv. 17, 43 ; xxvi. 10 ; xxx. 15, 30 ; Josh. vii. 
3 ; in JE Num. xvi. 13 ; in E Ex. xvii. 4 ; xxiii. 30 ; 
Num. xiii. 18 ; in P Gen. xlvii. 9 ; Lev. xxv. 52 ; Num. 
xvi. 9 (worked over) ; xxvi. 54, 56 ; xxxiii. 54 ; xxxv. 8 ; 
in Deut. 5 times ; P Josh. xxii. 17 ; all in Hexateuch. 

17. ©? with suffix and participle (xliii. 4 J). See ch. 
xxiv., Marks of J, No. 11. 

18. fittTOnn linger (xliii. 10 J) ; besides in J xix. 16 ; 
Ex. xii. 39 ; all in Hexateuch. 

19. ib^tf peradventure (ver. 12 J). See ch. xvi., Marks 
of J, No. 12. 



486 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

20. nns door (ver. 19 J) ; besides in J iv. 7 ; xviii. 1, 
2, 10 ; xix. 6, 11 ; xxxviii. 14 ; Ex. xii. 22, 23 ; Num. xi. 
10 ; in E Ex. xxxiii. 8, 9, 10 ; Num. xii. 5 ; in JE Num. 
xvi. 27; in P Gen. vi. 16 and fifty-five times besides; 
twice in Deut., and once referred to Ed, viz., Josh. viii. 
29. 

21. rnriPitrn Tig boiv the head and make obeisance (ver. 
28 J). See ch.' xxiv., Marks of J, No. 20. 

22. *a particle of entreaty (xliii. 20 ; xliv. 18 J) ; be- 
sides in J Ex. iv. 10, 13 ; Num. xii. 11 ; Josh. vii. 8 ; all 
in Hexateuch. 

23. n|»H D'nn^D according to these words (xliv. 7 J). 
See ch. xxxix., Marks of J, No. 5. 

24. b nb^bn far be it, followed by yn with the infini- 
tive (xliv. 7, 17). See ch. xviii., xix., Marks of J, No. 8. 

25. The ending p (xliv. 1, 23 J). See ch. xviii., xix., 
Marks of J, No. 22. 

The attempt to establish a parallel narrative to ch. 
xlii. for J, and to chs. xliii., xliv. for E, rests on very slen- 
der grounds. Snatches of the former are suspected in 
xlii. 2a, 4b, 6, 7, 10, 27, 28, 38, ,and of the latter in xliii. 
14, 23b. It is alleged that xlii. 2a is superfluous beside 
ver. la, which it is not ; ver. 4b is sundered from its con- 
nection and given to J because of the phrase 'pOtf ^fcpp* 1 
mischief befall him, though these words are found as well 
in E, and their recurrence (ver. 38 ; xliv. 29), instead of 
being a reason for partition, is indicative rather of the 
unity of the entire narrative ; ver. 6 because of trt© 
governor, which occurs nowhere else in the Hexateuch, 
and is here used instead of D^J* lord, as vs. 30, 33, E, or 
btt5£ ruler, as xlv. 8, 26, E ; but if the same writer can 
speak of Joseph as 0^8 and bm, why not also as T^bti?, 
especially as trtttj in the opinion of Dillmann " may here 
be a technical word traditionally preserved, since it 
agrees remarkably with Salitis or Silitis, the name of the 



JOSEPH MAKES HIMSELF KNOWN (CH. XLV.) 487 

first ruler of the Hyksos in Egypt ; " moreover, it is very 
inconsistent for the critics to refer ver. 6 to another than 
E, notwithstanding the plain allusion to Joseph's dreams 
in the last clause where his brothers bow themselves to 
the ground before him (cf. xxxvii. 10). " He knew them, 
but made himself strange unto them," in ver. 7, is said to 
be an insertion from J because of the repetition in ver. 
8, which, however, is for the sake of adding a contrasted 
thought, and the removal of this clause leaves the follow- 
ing words, " spake roughly with them," unexplained, so 
that Dillmann finds it necessary to transpose them after 
ver. 9a. So ver. 10 because of bss food, though this is 
equally found in E. And vs. 27, 28, 38, for reasons 
already sufficiently discussed. Furthermore, xliii. 14, 23b, 
are cut out of their connection and given to E, because 
they flatly contradict the critical allegation that J knows 
nothing of Simeon's imprisonment and that he never 
says El Shaddai. 

It will be observed that the phrase " land of Canaan," 
previously claimed as characteristic of P, here appears 
repeatedly in E (xlii. 5, 7, 13, 29, 32) and J (xliv. 8). 
See ch. xii. 5, Marks of P, No. 4. 

JOSEPH MAKES HIMSELF KNOWN (CH. XLV.) 

The complications of the immediately preceding chap- 
ters, as is correctly observed by Tuch, simply serve to 
prepare the way for the surprising denouement in ch. 
xlv., which is a sufficient proof that this chapter must be 
from the narrator of the foregoing circumstances; and 
in like manner ch. xlv. leads directly to ch. xlvi. Never- 
theless the critics assign this chapter in the main to E, 
on the ground of alleged discrepancies with what precedes 
and follows. How, it is said, could Joseph ask (ver. 3) 
whether his father was yet living after his own previous 



488 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

inquiry (xliii. 27, 28), arid Judah's speech (xliv. 18-34), as 
reported by J ? The suggestion only shows how utterly 
this cold and captious criticism is out of sympathy with 
the writer, and with the whole situation. Joseph's heart 
is bursting with long-suppressed emotion. He had 
asked about the old man of whom they spake. He can 
maintain this distance and reserve no longer. With the 
disclosure " I am Joseph," his first utterance follows the 
bent of his affections, " How is my father?" 

Again, it is objected that Pharaoh had bidden Joseph 
bring his father with his household to Egypt, promising 
him the good of the land (vs. 17, 18), yet (xlvii. 1) Jo- 
seph announces their coming to Pharaoh, as though he 
had never heard of it before ; they petition (ver. 4) to be 
allowed to dwell in Goshen, and Pharaoh grants it (ver. 
6), without any allusion to his previous invitation and 
promise. 

But there is no implication in this last act that the 
first had not preceded it. All proceeds quite naturally in 
the narrative. At the first intimation of the presence of 
Joseph's brethren Pharaoh asks them to Egypt to share 
the good of the land, assigning them no residence, and 
only offering them subsistence in this time of scarcity. 
Upon their actual arrival with their father and all their 
possessions Joseph notifies Pharaoh of the fact, and pre- 
sents his brethren to him with the request that they may 
dwell in Goshen as best suited to their occupation. And 
when this is granted he presents his aged father to the 
king. All is as consistent and natural as possible. 

It is further urged that there are back references to 
this chapter and coincidences with it in other E passages 
which are indicative of their common origin. Thus, xlvi. 
5 makes mention of the wagons sent by Pharaoh 
to bring the wives of Joseph's brethren, and their little 
ones, and their father, agreeably to xlv. 19, 21. Chs. xlvii. 



JOSEPH MAKES HIMSELF KNOWN (CH. XLY.) 489 

12, 1. 21 allude to Joseph's promise (xlv. 11) to nourish 
his father and his household. The reference of all that 
had befallen Joseph to the providence of God (xlv. 7, 8) 
is as 1. 20 ; and the exalted position assigned to Joseph 
in Egypt (xlv. 8) is as xli. 40-43. 

The common authorship of these so-called E passages 
is freely admitted. But this is no concession to critical 
partition. Precisely the same line of proof from allu- 
sions and coincidences links this chapter indissolubly to 
J passages likewise. The constitution of the chapter is 
clearly at variance with the hypothesis of the critics, 
since what they allege to be criteria of distinct docu- 
ments, whether in language or in the contents of the 
narrative, are here inseparably blended. Their only re- 
source here, as elsewhere, is to interpret these damaging 
clauses as insertions by R, which they accordingly cut 
out of their proper connection and assign to J as though 
they were scraps taken from a supposed parallel narra- 
tive of his. 

Verse la is given to J because of ps^in«l refrain himself ; 
only besides in the Hexateuch xliii. 31 J; but lb, 
closely connected with it, is assigned to E because of 
3Hirin mode himself known ; only besides in the Old Tes- 
tament Num. xii. 6 E. 

Verse 2 is declared superfluous in its connection be- 
side ver. 16. But it is not. The action progresses regu- 
larly. Joseph's weeping was heard by those outside (ver. 
2), but the occasion of it became known subsequently 
(ver. 16). 

Verse 4b, the sale of Joseph into Egypt is in the wrong- 
document ; of course excision is necessary. 

Verse 5 is a singular medley ; no two successive clauses 
can be assigned to the same document. The first clause 
has ^ns^n be grieved, J, as vi. 6 ; xxxiv. 7 ; the second 
DS^jpSa nn^ (anger) burn in your eyes, only besides in the 



490 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

Old Testament xxxi. 35 E ; the third, the sale of Joseph, 
J ; the fourth, Elohim, E. 

Verse 7a repeats 5b, but Elohim occurs in both, com- 
pelling the critics to give both to E, and so confess that 
repetition is not proof of a doublet, or else, as Kautzsch 
proposes, to change one Elohim to Jehovah, and throw 
the blame on R. Dillmann remarks upon the construc- 
tion as unusual and difficult, which affords him a pre- 
text for the conjecture that it is a mutilated insertion 
from J. It is of little consequence how it is accom- 
plished, so that a foothold is found in the verse for J. 

Verse 10, Joseph's naming Goshen as their place of 
abode is implied in xlvi. 28 J, where Jacob goes directly 
thither. It is hence severed from its connection and 
given to J, in whole or in part, while its minute enumera- 
tion of particulars is such as is elsewhere held to charac- 
terize P in distinction from both J and E. 

Verse 13 is assigned to J because of Tnin bring doivn, 
as xxxix. 1, and because it repeats ver. 9 ; so ver. 14, be- 
cause of "H8}S b# btlfell upon the neck, as xxxiii. 4, xlvi. 
29 ; while ver. 15, a part of the same scene, is given to E. 
Wellhausen by comparison with xxxiii. 4 tries to estab- 
lish a diversity between J and E in the construction of 
pttj} kissed, a conclusion which Dillmann thinks " weak in 
its' feet." 

Verse 19. DD^pbl DD&tib/or your little ones and for your 
tvives, is a J phrase. 

Verse 20. ohrrba DS3*3f let not your eye spare (E. V., 
regard not), is peculiar to D ; " the good of all the land 
of Egypt is yours " duplicates ver. 18. 

Verse 21. " And the children of Israel did so," is 
such a preliminary statement of what is more fully de- 
tailed afterward as the critics are in the habit of reckon- 
ing a duplicate account. 

Verse 28 is the response to ver. 27 ; but one verse has 



JOSEPH MAKES HIMSELF KNOWN (CH. XLV.) 491 

" Jacob/' and must be assigned to E, while the other has 
" Israel," and is given to J. 

It is apparent here, as in many other cases, that the as- 
signment of verses and clauses is simply the enforcement, 
nolens volens, of an arbitrary determination of the critics. 
No one would dream of sundering these mutually unre- 
lated scraps from the rest of the chapter, with which they 
are closely connected, but for the application of alleged 
criteria which the critics have devised in other places 
in framing their hypothesis. These are carried rigor- 
ously through at whatever disturbance of the connec- 
tion or havoc of the sense, because to abandon them 
would be to give up the hypothesis. The very least that 
can be said is that this mincing work, to which the critics 
find themselves compelled to resort to so great an extent 
in Genesis, and increasingly so in the books that follow, 
lends no support to the hypothesis, but is simply a dead 
weight upon it. The hypothesis is plainly not an out- 
growth of this and similar chapters, but is obtruded upon 
them ; and the only question is how much lumber of this 
sort it can carry without signally breaking down. 

Elohim occurs four times in this chapter (vs. 5, 7, 8, 9), 
in the address of Joseph to his brothers. As he is no 
longer acting the part of an Egyptian, he might have 
spoken of Jehovah as consulting for the welfare of the 
chosen race. But Elohim is equally appropriate, since 
the prominent thought here and throughout the history 
of Joseph is that it is God, and not man, who guided the 
course of events (ver. 8 ; 1. 20). 

MAKES OF E 

1. ypy* Jacob (ver. 25). See ch. xxxvii., Marks of J, 
No. 1 ; ch. xlii.-xliv., Marks of E, No. 5. 

2. *Ppyn mn (anger) burn in one's eyes. Only besides 
xxxi. 35 E. 



492 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

3. ]2t3 lade (ver. 17) ; nowhere else in the Old Testa- 
ment. 

4. ni2 provision (ver. 21). See ch. xlii.-xliv., Marks 
of E, No. 9. 

5. 12 gram (ver. 23). See ch. xlii.-xliv., Marks of E, 
No. 12l * 

REMOVAL TO EGYPT (CH. XLVI. 1-27) 

Verses 1-5 are assigned to E on account of the back 
reference in ver. 5b to xlv. 19, 21 (but if these verses be- 
long to E, as Dillmann affirms, ver. 5b must be given to 
R likewise), and other criteria ; only ver. la is given to J 
or R because of " Israel " and " took his journey " £D*n. 
This affords an opportunity for creating a discrepancy. 
Jacob starts in E (ver. 5) from Beersheba, in J from 
some other place, presumably from Hebron (xxxvii. 14), 
and takes Beersheba on his way. It scarcely need be 
stated that the discrepancy is purely the result of the 
critical partition, and has no existence in the text itself. 
In ver. 2 " Elohim " and " visions of the night," which 
are held to be characteristics of E, 1 conflict with " Israel," 
a mark of J. The difficulty is adjusted by erasing the 
unwelcome name and tracing its insertion to R. 

Verses 6, 7 are attributed to P on account of words 
and phrases which are claimed as peculiar to P, but on 
very slight grounds as has been previously shown. P's 
last generally acknowledged statement 2 is that, in con- 
trast to Esau's removal to Mount Seir (xxxvi. 6-8), Jacob 
dwelt in the land of Canaan (xxxvii. 1). And yet here 
follows, without a word of explanation, the removal of 

1 The repetition of the name, and the answer " Here I am," as Gen. 
xxii. 11, Ex. iii. 4, is also claimed for E ; but Gen. xxii. 11 can only 
he assigned to E by manipulating- the text and expunging " Jehovah." 

2 Two isolated and unexplained statements of Joseph's age, when 
tending flocks (xxxvii. 2), and when standing before Pharaoh (xli. 46), 
are given to P by some critics, and denied to him by others. 



KEMOVAL TO EGYPT (CH. XLVI. 1-27) 493 

Jacob and his family to Egypt ; and it comes out in sub- 
sequent allusions that Joseph was already settled there 
and married into a priestly family (xlvi. 20, 27), that he 
was in high favor with Pharaoh, and it was he who gave 
his father and brethren a possession in the land of Egypt 
(xlvii. 7, 11). But how all this came about P does not 
inform us. The critics are greatly exercised to account 
for so egregious a gap as this. Kayser suggests that P 
was theoretical rather than historical ; Noldeke that R 
omitted P's account because it was contradictory to E 
and J ; others, because it agreed with theirs. And yet 
elsewhere R is careful to preserve even the smallest 
scraps of P, though they are quite superfluous beside the 
more extended narratives of E or J, e.g., xix. 29, and if 
we may believe the critics he is not deterred by incon- 
sistencies. 

The list of Jacob's family (vs. 8-27) is a critical puzzle. 
It is in the style of other genealogies attributed to P, 
and has expressions claimed as his, viz., " Paddan-aram " 
(ver. 15), " souls " (vs. 15, 18, 22, 25-27), " came out of 
his loins " (ver. 26). And yet there are duplicates of it 
in P (Ex. i. 1-5 ; vi. 14-25 ; Num. xxvi. 5 sqq.) ; Israel 
(ver. 8) is a mark of J, and, as Kayser affirms, it has 
too many allusions to J and E to admit of their being 
explained as interpolations. Thus (ver. 12), "Er and 
Onan died in the land of Canaan," refers to xxxviii. 7-10 
J ; ver. 18, " Zilpah, whom Laban gave to Leah," and 
ver. 25, " Bilhah, whom Laban gave unto Rachel," to xxix. 
24, 29 1 E ; vs. 20, 27, Joseph's marriage and sons to xli. 
50-52 E. 2 So Hupfeld attributes this list to J, Well- 

1 It is with the view of quietly evading this difficulty that Wellhausen 
and Dillmann absurdly sunder these verses from the rest of ch. xxix., 
and give them to P. 

2 Also (ver. 15) " Dinah " refers to xxx. 21, if Kayser and Schrader 
are correct in ascribing ch. xxxiv. entire to J. 



494 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

hausen to a later writer who derived his materials from 
P, or according to Kayser, from P and J, or in the opin- 
ion of Kuenen one who was acquainted with Genesis in 
its present form, and with Num. xxvi. (" Hexateuch," p. 68), 
while Dillmann follows Noldeke in imputing it to P, but 
worked over by E, who supplied the additions from J 
and E. But such a linking together of J, E, and P as 
we find in this passage, and repeatedly in others, occurs 
too frequently to be set aside by any critical device. 
These cannot be separate and independent documents, 
since their alleged criteria are indiscriminately mingled 
in the same continuous paragraphs, and are to all ap- 
pearance freely used by the same writer. 

As (ver. 8) this list professes to give " the names of the 
children of Israel who came into Egypt," Dillmann af- 
firms that the mention of Er and Onan (ver. 12) implies 
that they were living at that time (the clause which 
speaks of their death in Canaan being, as he contends, an 
interpolation from ch. xxxviii.), and that they are in fact 
counted in making up the number thirty-three in ver. 15. 
He hence concludes that the author of this list is here at 
variance with ch. xxxviii. This is a most extraordinary 
attempt to create a discrepancy in defiance of the plain 
language of the verse, by throwing out of the text its ex- 
plicit statement on the subject. It only shows what ex- 
travagances can be made to result from critical partition. 
Er and Onan are not included in the summation (ver. 15). 
The number is completed by adding Jacob, who in ver. 
8 is reckoned one of " the children of Israel " (in its na- 
tional sense), and Dinah, the total embracing, as is dis- 
tinctly declared in ver. 15, " daughters " as well as " sons." 
To make out his case Dillmann is obliged here again to 
expunge " daughters " from the text. 

A further discrepancy is alleged in the chronology. It 
is said that the antecedent narratives of J and E do not 



EEMOVAL TO EGYPT (CH. XLVI. 1-27) 495 

allow time enough for the birth of all the children named 
in this list of P. This is based on the assumption, which 
even Wellhausen 1 repels, that every individual person 
named in the list was born before the migration into Egypt. 
Such an inference might indeed be drawn from vs. 8, 26, 
strictly taken. But to press the letter of such general state- 
ments into contradiction with the particulars embraced 
under them is in violation of the evident meaning of the 
writer. So ver. 15 rigorously interpreted would make Leah 
to have borne thirty-three children to Jacob in Paddan- 
aram, one of whom was Jacob himself. Zilpah (ver. 18) 
and Bilhah (ver. 25) bare their grandsons as well as 
their sons. Benjamin is included (xxxv. 24, 26) among 
Jacob's sons born in Paddan-aram, though his birth near 
Ephrath is recorded but a few verses before. The nu- 
merical correspondences of the table, a total of seventy, 
the descendants of each maid precisely half those of her 
mistress (Leah 32, Zilpah 16, Eachel 14, Bilhah 7), sug- 
gest design and can scarcely be altogether accidental. 
And a comparison of Num. xxvi. leads to the belief that 
regard was had to the subsequent national organization 
in constructing this table, and that its design was to in- 
clude those descendants of Jacob from whom permanent 
families or tribal divisions sprang, even if in a few in- 
stances they did not chance to have been born before 
the descent into Egypt. As a rule Jacob's sons gave 
names to the tribes, and his grandsons to the tribal di- 
visions. To this, however, there were some exceptions. 
Joseph's sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, were adopted by 
Jacob as his own (xlviii. 5), and tribes were called after 
them. In like manner (ver. 12), Hezron and Hamul, 

1 Composition d. Hexateuchs, p. 51 : "This list once and again bursts 
through the historic hounds of Genesis." Critical consistency requires 
this admission from those who assign the numbers in xxxvii. 2 and xli. 
46 to P, or this document will be in conflict with itself. 



496 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

grandsons of Judah, are included in this list as substi- 
tutes for his two deceased sons ; and (ver. 21) ten sons 
of Benjamin 1 are enumerated, though some of those who 
are here spoken of as sons were really grandsons (Num. 
xxvi. 40 ; 1 Chron. viii. 3, 4). And so no difficulty is created 
by the circumstance that four sons are ascribed to Keu- 
ben, ver. 9, but only two, xlii. 37. A few names are here 
recorded of those who were still in the loins of their 
fathers (Heb. vii. 9, 10) at the time of the migration. It 
is no departure from the usages of Hebrew thought to 
conceive of unborn children as included in the persons 
of their parents (ver. 4b). The Septuagint goes farther 
in this direction than the Hebrew text by inserting in 
ver. 20 five sons and grandsons of Ephraim and Manas- 
seh, thus making the total in ver. 27 seventy-five instead 
of seventy ; and so in the speech of Stephen, Acts vii. 14. 

The statement in ver. 27, that seventy of Jacob's fam- 
ily came into Egypt, is repeated Deut. x. 22, which can 
only be accounted for on the Wellhausen hypothesis, 
which makes this list postexilic and Deuteronomy a prod- 
uct of the age of Josiah, by assuming that these two 
identical statements were made independently of each 
other. 

The divine names in this chapter are grouped together 
in the opening verses (vs. 1-3). These verses, though 

1 It has been paraded as an absolute inconsistency that Benjamin is in 
this list spoken of as the father of ten sons, whereas in the narrative 
(xliii. 8 ; xliv. 22 sqq.) he is called HIPS lad ; but Rehoboam is called H37D 
young (2 Chron. xiii. 7) when he was upward of forty years of age (xii. 
13). The epithet "jEj^n the youngest, which is applied to Benjamin 
(xlii. 13, 15, 20 sqq.). denotes relative, not absolute age, and has no ref- 
erence to size. Though Benjamin was tenderly treated as the youngest 
of the family, and Jacob's darling, the sole remaining son of his favor- 
ite wife, it must not be inferred that he was still in his boyhood. Of 
the ten named in this list as sprung from him, five at least were grand- 
sons, and some of the remainder may have been born in Egypt. 



REMOVAL TO EGYPT (CH. XLVI. 1-27) 497 

attributed to E, are filled with references to former J 
passages, which is at variance with every form of the di- 
visive hypothesis. The name "Israel," not only in ver. 
la, which is given to J, but in ver. 2, is a mark of J. 
Jacob's coming to Beersheba, and offering sacrifices there 
to the God of his father Isaac, is in evident allusion to 
the altar built there by Isaac and the divine manifesta- 
tion and promise there made to him (xxvi. 23-25 J). 
And the language which God here addresses to Jacob in 
the night, " I am the God of thy father ; fear not. . . . 
I will go down with thee," is a repetition of what he said 
to Isaac likewise in the night, " I am the God of Abraham 
thy father ; fear not, for I am with thee." " I will make 
of thee a great nation " (ver. 3) is a repetition of the 
promise made to Abraham (xii. 2 J). " I will go down 
with thee into Egypt ; and I will also surely bring thee 
up again " (ver. 4), is the renewal of the promise made 
to Jacob himself on a like occasion before, when he was 
on the point of leaving the land of Canaan : " I am with 
thee, and will keep thee whithersoever thou goest, and 
will bring thee again into this land " (xxviii. 15 J). This 
obvious dependence upon J passages throughout is suf- 
ficient to assure us that there can be no variance in the 
use of the divine names. And in point of fact there is 
none. " The God of Isaac " is a designation equivalent 
to Jehovah (xxviii. 13 ; xxxii. 10, E. Y., ver. 9 J). And 
there are special reasons for joining with this name the 
term ban ha-El (ver. 3), from its association with the name 
" Israel," here significantly employed, from its allusion 
to xxxv. 11, where the promises of a multiplied offspring 
and of the gift of Canaan were made to him on his return 
to this land, which are now emphatically repeated as he 
is again about to leave it, and from its meaning the 
Mighty One, with its assurance, just then especially 
needed, of omnipotent protection and blessing ; and a 
32 



498 THE GENERATIONS OP JACOB 

like assurance is involved in Elohim (ver. 2), the God of 
creation and of universal providence. 



MARKS OF J (VER. la) 

1. 2Dp journeyed. See Diction of ch. xx., No. 1. 

2. Israel. See ch. xxxvii., Marks of J, No. 1 ; ch. xlii- 
xliv., No. 5. 

MARKS OF E (VS. lb-5a) 

1. Night Vision. See ch. xx., Marks of E, No. 4. 

2. iiDb D^E) make a nation. See ch. xxi. 1-21, Marks 
of E, No. 12^ 

3. 7\-F\ to go doivn ; this form of the infinitive occurs 
but once besides in the Hexateuch, viz., rw to hioiv (Ex. 
ii. 4 E). A form of so rare occurrence in this document 
cannot be regarded as characteristic of it. 



MARKS OF P 

1. TOW goods, WD"\ had gotten (ver. 6). See ch. xii. 5, 
Marks of : P, No. 2."' 

2. inttS 13HT Ms seed with him (vs. 6, 7) ; while equiva- 
lent phrases occur repeatedly in all the documents, this 
precise form of speech is found but twice besides in the 
Hexateuch (Gen. xxviii. 4 ; Num. xviii. 19 P). 

3. yp$? Jacob. See ch. xlii.-xliv., Marks of E, No. 5. 

4. nisa first-born (ver. 8). See ch. xxv. 12-18, Marks 
of P, No! 4. 

5. Paddan-aram (ver. 15). See ch. xxv. 19-34, Marks 
of P, No. 4. 

6. ©as souls (vs. 15, 18, 22, 25-27). See ch. xii. 5, 
Marks of P, No. 3. 

7. "b^ iSBfcS came out of his thigh (ver. 26) ; this pre- 
cise form of expression occurs in the Hexateuch but 



SETTLEMENT IN GOSHEN (CH. XLVI. 28-XLVII. 11) 499 

once besides (Ex. i. 5 P), where it is borrowed from the 
present passage ; an equivalent expression is found in 
xxxv. 11 P., Tp^bra K2J come out of thy loins, and one 
closely related in xv. 4 J, ?p$EMa fcM£ come out of thy 
boivels. The same conception is involved when an oath 
relating to posterity (xxiv. 2 J), or to be fulfilled after the 
death of him who has imposed it (xlvii. 29 J), is taken 
with the hand under the thigh. 

SETTLEMENT IN GOSHEN (CH. XLVI. 28-XLVII. 11) 

Dillmann assigns xlvi. 28-xlvii. 5a, 6b, to J ; and xlvii. 
5b, 6a, 7-11, to P. 

It is argued that xlvi. 28 sqq. belongs to a different 
document from the preceding, because in ver. 6 (P) Jacob 
and his family had already come into Egypt, whereas in 
ver. 28 he is still on the way thither, and sends Judah 
before him to Joseph to obtain the necessary directions 
about admission to Goshen. This, it is said, is J's ac- 
count ; and according to Wellhausen it connects directly 
with ver. 5. But that belongs to E. According to the 
usual method of Hebrew writing, a summary statement of 
the journey is made at the outset (vs. 5, 6), and the de- 
tails are introduced afterward (vs. 28 sqq.). These the 
critics erect into two separate accounts, as they are ac- 
customed to do elsewhere and with just as little reason. 

"Wellhausen finds a discrepancy between the modest 
request (ver. 34 J) for the land of Goshen and the grand 
offer previously made by Pharaoh (xlv. 18 E) of the 
best portion of the land of Egypt. But, as Dillmann ex- 
plains, this is not the meaning of Pharaoh's offer. He 
has no thought of their taking up their abode in Egypt. 
His proposal is not to present them with a choice part 
of the country as their residence, but to supply their ne- 
cessities during the prevalence of the famine. " The 



500 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

good of the land," which he says that he will give thein, 
denotes, as is plain from vs. 20, 23 ; xxiv. 10 ; 2 Kin. viii. 
9, the good things, the best and choicest products of the 
land. The sons of Jacob make an advance upon the 
promise given them by the king, when instructed by 
Joseph they ask that Goshen may be assigned to them 
to dwell in. And when in response to this request the 
king assures them that they may dwell in Goshen, " in 
the best of the land " (xlvii. 6), he uses a different term 
from that contained in his original offer (not ym 3 but 

ntra). 

T ■•' 

The critics allege that Pharaoh's invitation to Joseph's 
father and brethren in ch. xlv. E is here entirely ignored, 
and their coming is announced to the king (xlvi. 31 ; 
xlvii. 1), as something altogether new and unexpected ; 
this must, therefore, be a variant account of the matter 
as given by J. But this is by no means the case. Pha- 
raoh had invited them to come, and now Joseph goes to 
tell him that they have arrived. The invitation is ac- 
cepted ; what occasion was there to say more ? 

The attempt is also made to produce two divergent 
accounts of the reception by Pharaoh. The critics em- 
ploy for this purpose their customary method of making 
the part stand for the whole, and arraying successive in- 
cidents against each other as though they were variant 
reports of the same transaction. Joseph first presents 
five of his brethren to the king that they may tell him 
their occupation and have an appropriate residence as- 
signed them. He then presents his father, causa honoris, 
for a formal interview. This is all natural enough. The 
complaint is made that the father, as the head of the 
clan, ought to be have been presented first. The objec- 
tor may settle that matter with the historian, or, if he 
pleases, with K. The sons were the active members 
of the family, and the reason given in the narrative itself 



SETTLEMENT IN GOSHEN (CH. XLVI. 28-XLVII. 11) 501 

for the order of procedure is sufficient. How the sons 
were deferred to in matters of importance affecting the 
family is plain from other narratives likewise (cf. xxiv. 
50, 53, 55, 59 ; xxxiv. 5, 11, 13). Moreover, the critics will 
have it that there was but one presentation ; according 
to J (vs. 2 sqq.) Joseph presented his brothers unto 
Pharaoh ; on the contrary, P states (vs. 7-11) that it was 
his father that Joseph presented. The simple fact is 
that he presented both at different times, as the nar- 
rative declares ; so there is no discrepancy whatever. 
Hupfeld evidently saw none, as he does not separate vs. 
7-11 from the preceding verses ; neither did Delitzsch in 
the first four editions of his " Commentary." 

Kayser gives ver. 11 to E, on account of its manifest 
connection with vs. 5, 6. Wellhausen, Dillmann, and 
others reverse the argument, and give vs. 5b, 6a, to P on 
account of their correspondence in thought and expres- 
sion with ver. 11. This gives an opportunity to claim 
that J and P use different designations for the territory 
assigned to Israel ; what the former calls Goshen (vs. 4, 
6b), the latter denominates the land of Rameses (ver. 11). 
Yet " the land of Rameses " is found only in this single 
passage ; it is called " Goshen " in ver. 27 P, where a 
critical process is necessary to eliminate it, and, as Kay- 
ser observes, Rameses occurs in Ex. i. 11 E ; xii. 37 J, as 
the name of a city, from which the surrounding region 
might readily derive its appellation ; and it is admitted 
that the land of Rameses and Goshen have precisely the 
same signification. 

The authority of the LXX. is here adduced to justify 
the critical severance of vs. 5, 6. The LXX. have here, 
as so frequently elsewhere, rearranged the text for rea- 
sons of their own, which in this instance are quite appar- 
ent. In order to bring Pharaoh's answer into more ex- 
act correspondence with the request of Joseph's brothers, 



502 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

they limit it to ver. 6b, which they attach to the opening- 
words of ver. 5 ; and then to prepare the way for the 
clauses which have been passed over, vs. 5b, 6a are intro- 
duced by the following insertion, " And Jacob and his sons 
came into Egypt to Joseph, and Pharaoh the king of 
Egypt heard it ; and Pharaoh spake to Joseph, saying." 
The critics eagerly catch at this, and claim that it supplies 
a missing portion of the original text of P. But surely no 
unbiassed person would think of substituting this for the 
Masoretic text of these verses. 

MARKS OF P 

1. The statement of age (ver. 9). See ch. vi.-ix., 
Marks of P, No. 2 ; ch. xvi., No. 1. 

2. ^TZJ ^n W the days of the years of the life of (vs. 8, 
9). See ch. xxiii., Marks of P, No. 5. The same phrase 
also 2 Sam. xix. 35 (E. V., ver. 34). 

3. n^tt pilgrimage (ver. 9). See ch. xvii., Marks of 
P, No. 8.'" : ' 

4. rwna possession (ver. 11). See ch. xvii., Marks of 

p,no.Y:~ : 

MARKS OF J 

1. WRjartj bsj fell on his neck (xlvi. 29) ; only besides 
in J xxxiii. 4 ; in xlv. 14 it is cut out of an E connection 
on account of this very phrase. 

, 2. Israel (xlvi. 29, 30). See ch. xxxvii., Marks of J, 
No. 1 ; ch. xlii.-xliv., No. 5. 

3. D2SH this time, E. V., now (ver. 30). See ch. xviii., 
xix., Marks of J, No. 9. 

4. in ^113? thou art yet alive (ver. 30). The repetition 
of this and equivalent expressions in this narrative is 
due on the one hand to Joseph's solicitude about his 
father, and on the other his father's long-continued ap- 



SETTLEMENT IN GOSHEN (CH. XLVI. 28-XLVII. 11) 503 

prehension that Joseph was dead. It is the natural way 
of expressing the thought, and cannot with any propriety 
be classed as the characteristic of any particular docu- 
ment. It is found besides in J (xliii. 7, 27, 28), in E 
(xlv. 3, 26), and in ver. 28, which is cut out of an E con- 
nection and given to J ; also in E (Ex. iv. 18) ; in D or 
Kd. (Deut. xxxi. 27) ; in other books, 1 Sam. xx. 14 ; 2 
Sam. xii. 22 ; xviii. 14 ; 1 Kin. xx. 32. 

5. D'Him? from youth (Yew 34). The word "youth" 
occurs but once besides in the Hexateuch with this 
preposition (Gen. viii. 21 J), and but twice without it 
(Ley. xxii. 13 P ; Num. xxx. 4 (E. V., ver. 3)) commonly 
referred to P, though Dillmann is disposed to assign it to 
a code of laws which he denominates S. In other books 
of the Bible "from youth" occurs repeatedly; and it is 
plainly not the peculiar property of any one writer. 

6. ro^in abomination (ver. 34) ; in the Hexateuch be- 
sides, xliii. 32 ; Ex. viii. 22 (E. V., ver. 26) J; Lev. xviii. 
22, 26, 27, 29, 30 ; xx. 13, and repeatedly in Deuteron- 
omy. 

7. tfXT} presented (xlvii. 2) ; besides in Hexateuch, 
xxx. 38 ; xxxiii. 15 ; xliii. 9 J ; Ex. x. 24 E ; Deut. 
xxviii. 56 D. That TjDJWI is used in ver. 7 P in the 
same sense is no indication of a different document, 
since it is used likewise in J (Num. xi. 24). 

8. "133 heavy, sore (ver. 4). See ch. xlii.-xliv., Marks 
of J, No. 14. 

9. *nn$a in order that (xlvi. 34). See xxi. 22-34, 
Marks of E, No. 3. 

10. D| . . . D| both . . . and (ver. 34) ; be- 
sides in J (xxiv. 25, 44 ; xliii. 8 ; xliv. 16 ; xlvii. 3 ; 1. 9) ; 
in J, based on E and worked over by II (xlvii. 19) ; an 
ancient writing inserted in J (Deut. xxxii. 25) ; in E 
(Gen. xxxii. 20, E. V., ver. 19 ; Ex. xii. 32 ; xviii. 18) ; in 
P (Num. xviii. 3). 



504 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

Jacob commissions Judah (xlvi. 28) rather than Keu- 
ben, because of the confidence inspired by his character, 
which made him an acknowledged leader among his 
brethren (xlix. 8), as Peter among the apostles. This is 
not the invention of a writer partial to Judah, and so a 
criterion of one document in distinction from another. 

Joseph's arrangements in egypt (ch. xlvii. 12-27) 

An account is here given of the measures adopted by 
Joseph during the famine. The only source of supply 
was the stores of grain, which as the chief officer of the 
government he had amassed from the over-production of 
the seven years of plenty (xli. 34-36, 47-49). In pur- 
chasing their necessary food during the years of scarcity 
that followed, the people parted first with all their money, 
then with all their cattle and beasts of burden, and finally 
with their lands. 1 Thus the land became the property 
of the king ; and it became the established rule in Egypt 
that the people should pay to him, as the owner of the 
land, a rental of one-fifth of its produce. 

Wellhausen says that this peculiar passage (vs. 13-26) 
has no proper connection either in E or J ; he assumes 
that it originally had its place in a parallel by J to ch. 
xli. Dillmann thinks that it was written as the continu- 
ation of ch. xli., since ver. 13 connects with xli. 55, 56. 

The intimate connection between this passage and ch. 

1 The LXX., followed by the Samaritan and the Vnlgate, read 
(ver. 21): "He enslaved them as servants to him," i.e., Pharaoh 
S^^b in'&S TQ3W1, as though after disposing of their lands the peo- 
ple sold themselves. This variant text implies that Joseph took the 
people at their word when they offered (ver. 19) to become bond-ser- 
vants to Pharaoh for the sake of bread. It agrees also with vs. 23, 25. 
The Hebrew reads, " He removed them to cities " D^lPb ItlS "V^lPri, 
that they might be nearer the storehouses, and their wants more easily 
supplied. 



Joseph's arrangements (ch. xlvii. 12-27) 505 

xli. is obvious, and it may be said to continue the narra- 
tive of that chapter. Chapter xli. records how Joseph 
stored up the grain during the years of plenty ; and when 
the years of dearth began to come, the people went to him 
to buy their food. Then the passage before us tells how 
the people were impoverished, as the famine continued 
from year to year, by the purchases that they were 
obliged to make. But it does not follow from this that 
it originally formed a part of that chapter, and is now 
out of its proper place. The narrative of Joseph's deal- 
ings with the Egyptians was interrupted in order to tell 
of the coming of his brothers, and to explain how this 
resulted in the removal of Jacob and his family to Egypt 
and their settlement there. This, in fact, is the princi- 
pal reason why the famine was spoken of at all. When 
this recital is ended, the unfinished subject of Joseph's 
dealings with the Egyptians is resumed and completed. 

And the details here given upon this subject are not so 
much designed to impart information about Egypt as to 
exhibit by contrast the providential care extended over 
the chosen race in this period of sore distress. While 
the Egyptians were reduced to the greatest straits, " Jo- 
seph nourished his father, and his brethren, and all his 
father's household with bread" (ver. 12). "And Israel 
dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen ; and 
they gat them possessions therein, and were fruitful and 
multiplied exceedingly " (ver. 27). Yerses 12 and 27, 
from which the critics propose to sunder this paragraph, 
are thus essential to a proper understanding of it ; and 
its proper place is where it now stands between them. 

This paragraph likewise prepares the way for Ex. i. 8. 
The oppression of Israel by a king " who knew not Jo- 
seph," is a manifest allusion to the service which he had 
rendered to the nation, and to the advantage which he 
had secured for the king, as here detailed. 



506 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

Kayser refers vs. 12-26 to J, Schrader to E ; Dillmann 
thinks that the original account was by E, this was re- 
written by J, and then worked over by E. Yerse 27 he 
gives to P, except the words " the land of Goshen ; " 
Kayser gives ver. 27a to J on account of this phrase, and 
27b to P. Knobel contends that ver. 27 must belong to 
the preceding paragraph, to which it is attached with the 
view of contrasting the condition of Israel with the Egyp- 
tians, and that it cannot, therefore, be assigned to P, 
notwithstanding its use of P expressions ; especially as 
it also has the J phrase, " land of Goshen," and it dupli- 
cates the P verse (Ex. i. 7). This blending of the al- 
leged characteristics of different documents simply shows 
that what the critics regard as criteria of distinct writers 
are freely used by the same writer. 

MAEKS OP E 

1. The accurate account of Egyptian matters, and the 
analogy between vs. 25, 26, and xli. 34. But these afford 
no indication of the existence of distinct documents. 

2. bsbs nourished (ver. 12). This verb is here used 
with evident reference to its occurrence in Joseph's 
promise (xlv. 11), which he now fulfils. That these pas- 
sages are to be attributed to the same writer is readily ad- 
mitted, but not to a writer E, distinct from the author of 
xlvi. 6-xlvii. 11, which the critics divide between P and 
J. According to this partition, E here records Joseph's 
fulfilment of his promise to nourish his father and his 
family in Egypt, without having mentioned the fact that 
they had arrived in Egypt, or even that they had accepted 
the invitation to come thither. 

3. pTH prevailed (ver. 20), as over against *D3 sore, se- 
vere (ver. 13 J). See ch. xlii.-xliv., No. 14 That two 
different words are used in different passages to describe 



Joseph's arrangements (ch. xlyii. 12-27) 507 

the intensity of the famine is no indication of a diversity 
of writers, unless a writer can never vary his expressions. 



MARKS OF J 

1. ins sore (ver. 13). See ch. xlii.-xliv., No. 14. 

2. Ij&faVnfotind (ver. 14). The participle chances to 
occur but twice besides in the Hexateuch (Gen. xix. 15 
J ; Deut. xx. 11 D), but the verb is of frequent occur- 
rence, and is found in all the so-called documents. 

3. nnfail, be spent (vs. 15, 18) ; besides in J Lev. xxvi. 
20 (so Dillm.) ; Num. xxxii. 13 ; Josh. iv. 10, 11 ; E, Num. 
xiv. 33 ; Josh. iv. 1 ; v. 8 ; x. 20 ; JE, Josh. iii. 16, 17 ; viii. 
24 ; P, Lev. xxv. 29 ; Num. xiv. 35 ; xvii. 28 (E. V., ver. 
13) ; Deut. xxxiv. 8 ; D, Deut. ii. 14, 15, 16 ; Ed, Deut. 
xxxi. 24, 30 ; Josh. v. 6. 

4. Horses (ver. 17). It is alleged that J speaks of 
horses and horsemen in Egypt, but E does not. This is 
said to indicate that E was better acquainted with Egyp- 
tian affairs, as the monuments give no evidence of the ex- 
istence of horses there until after the Hyksos period; 
and although Diodorus Siculus speaks of horsemen in 
the army of Sesostris, horses would seem to have been 
used only for chariots in the first instance, and cavalry 
to belong to a later period (Isa. xxxi. 1 ; xxxvi. 9). That 
they have not yet been found upon the monuments of so 
early a date is a negative testimony which is liable at 
any time to be set aside by some fresh discovery, and is 
of no force against the positive statements of the passage 
under consideration and others like it. Moreover, there 
is no variance between the passages attributed to J and to 
E. It is observable that in the presents made by Pha- 
raoh to Abram (xii. 16 J) mention is made of sheep and 
oxen and asses and camels, but not of horses. J, how- 
ever, speaks (xlvi. 29) of Joseph making ready his chariot, 



508 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

which implies horses ; and more explicitly (1. 9), of his 
going with chariots and horsemen to bury his father. 
Dillmann remarks that while according to E wagons 
were sent for Jacob by Pharaoh's direction (xlv. 19, 21, 
27 ; xlvi. 5), they may have been drawn by other animals 
than horses ; and at any rate he is disposed to think that 
these verses though in an E context may have been in- 
serted by E. E, however, speaks of Joseph's chariot (xli. 
43). And Ex. xiv. is divided on the assumption that vs. 
6, 7, which speak of Pharaoh's chariots, are from E, but 
vs. 9, 17, 18, 23, 26, 28, which mention horsemen as well 
as chariots, are from J. The latter is supposed to have put 
a wrong interpretation upon the words "the horse and 
his rider," in the Song of Moses (Ex. xv. 1), which is al- 
leged to refer to charioteers, not to horsemen. This 
whole theory is spoiled, however, by Josh. xxiv. 6 E, 
which expressly says that the horsemen as well as the 
chariots of the Egyptians pursued Israel into the Ked 
Sea. Dr. Dillmann tries to evade this result by saying 
that " chariots and horsemen " cannot be from E, and 
must therefore have been inserted by R. 

The case then stands thus : In vs. 6, 7, of Ex. xiv., 
chariots are spoken of without separate mention of horse- 
men, though both are joined together throughout the 
rest of the chapter. This is made a pretext for assigning 
those verses to E in distinction from J, and inferring 
that E never speaks of horsemen. But horsemen are 
spoken of along with chariots in the E verse Josh. xxiv. 
6 ; this being contrary to the critic's assumption the 
words are stricken out and declared to be an interpola- 
tion by R. And this is all the ground there is for the 
alleged variance between J and E in this particular. 

5. ns£ end (ver. 21) ; besides in J, Gen. xix. 4 ; xlvii. 
2 ; Josh. ix. 16 ; in E, Ex. xix. 12 ; Num. xx. 16 ; xxii. 36, 
41 ; xxiii. 13 ; in JE, Josh. iii. 2, 8, 15 ; iv. 19 ; in D, Deut. 



Joseph's arrangements (ch. xlvii. 12-27) 509 

xiii. 8 (E. V., ver. 7) ; xiv. 28 ; xxviii. 49, 64 ; xxx. 4 ; in 
Ed, Deut. iv. 32 ; Josh. xiii. 27 ; in P, Gen. viii. 3b ; xxiii. 
9 ; Ex. xiii. 20 ; xvi. 35 ; xxvi. 5, 28 ; Num. xi. 1 ; xxxiii. 
6, 37; xxxiv. 3; Josh. xv. 1, 2, 5, 8, 21 ; xviii. 15, 16, 19; 
later addition to P, Ex. xxxvi. 12, 33. 

6. p-i only (vs. 22, 26). See ch. vi. 1-8, Marks of J, 
No. 7. 

7. ^S^3 in XTa find favor in the eyes of. See ch. vi. 
1-8, Marks of J* No. 10 ; ch. xviii., xix., No. 28. 

8. I^kn napp^a possession of flocks, Ijjan n:pft possession 
of herds (ver. 17), manan nsptt possession of cattle (ver. 
18) ; only once besides in the Pentateuch (xxvi. 14 J). 

9. rrr parts (ver. 24) ; only once besides in the Penta- 
teuch in this sense (xliii. 34 J). 

The occurrence of a few unusual words in this para- 
graph need create no difficulty as to its authorship, un- 
less upon the assumption that no writer can use a word 
in one place which he has not used elsewhere. The fol- 
lowing are noted by Dillmann : nnb fainted (ver. 13), but 
once besides in the Old Testament (Prov. xxvi. 18) ; OBiJ 
fail (vs. 15, 16), only besides, Ps. lxxvii. 9 ; Isa. xvi. 4 ; 
xxix. 20 ; bnp/ed (ver. 17), nowhere else in the Old Testa- 
ment in precisely the same sense ; it is found twice besides 
in the Hexateuch, where it means " to lead ; " wxtobe deso- 
late (ver. 19), in the Kal form but once besides in the 
Hexateuch (Lev. xxvi. 32) ; an lo ! (ver. 23), nowhere else 
in the Hexateuch, and but once besides in the Old Testa- 
ment. 

MARKS OF P (VER. 27) 

1. "Land of Egypt" with "land of Goshen;" but 
this is no mere superfluous repetition, and as such indi- 
cative of the blending of two separate accounts. Israel 
was settled in the country of Egypt and the province of 
Goshen. 



510 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

2. THfctt had possessions. See ch. xxxiv., Marks of P, 
No. 4. 

3. •"D^'l •"C 1 ? were fruitful and multiplied. See ch. 
vi.-ix., Marks of P, No. 15. 



JACOB CHAKGES JOSEPH AND ADOPTS HIS SONS (CH. XLVII. 
28-XLVIII. 22) 

The critics generally agree in giving xlvii. 28 ; xlviii. 
3-6, to P, and xlvii. 29-31 to J. There is less agree- 
ment in the partition of the remainder of ch. xlviii., viz., 
whether vs. 1, 2 belong to J (Schrader), E (Wellhausen), 
or 2b to J and 1, 2a to E (Dillmann) ; ver. 7 to P (Hupfeld, 
Wellhausen, Dillmann), or a gloss (Schrader, Kayser) ; 
vs. 8-22 to E (Hupfeld, Schrader, Wellhausen) ; or vs. 9a, 
10b, 11, 12, 15, 16, 20 (in part), 21, 22, to E, and vs. 9b, 
10a, 13, 14, 17-19, 20b, to J (Dillmann) ; Kuenen ' regards 
vs. 13, 14, 17-19 as a later interpolation, and gives the 
rest to E. 

Hupfeld claims that there are most evident signs of 
the diversity of the accounts at the close of Jacob's his- 
tory in respect to his final charges to his sons and his 
burial. And Wellhausen adds that there is scarcely a 
passage in Genesis where the strata of the sources are so 
palpable as in the latter part of ch. xlvii. and the first of 
ch. xlviii. In xlvii. 28, he says, there is a beginning by 
P, in ver. 29 another by J, and in xlviii. 1 a third begin- 
ning of the very same history by E. But the fact is that 
there is no diversity of sources here whatever; all is 
linked together as one regularly unfolding and continu- 
ous narrative. The statement of the full age of a patri- 
arch always immediately precedes the account of his 
death ; so of Noah, ix. 29, Abraham, xxv. 7, and Isaac 
xxxv. 28. In conformity with this usage the statement 
1 Hexateuch, p. 146. 



adoption of Joseph's sons (xlyii. 28-xlviii. 22) 511 

of Jacob's age (xlvii. 28) is followed by the mention of 
his approaching death, in view of which he sends for 
Joseph and gives him direction respecting his burial, just 
as the mention of Joseph's age (1. 22, 23) is followed by 
a similar charge to his brethren respecting the disposition 
of his body (vs. 24, 25). Cli. xlvii. 28 is thus plainly pre- 
liminary to vs. 29-31, which latter is not a variant ac- 
count of the same transaction as xlix. 29-32 ; this be- 
longs to a subsequent occasion, and to an interview of 
Jacob with all his sons and not with Joseph only. And 
the visit of Joseph to his father in xlviii. 1 is not identi- 
cal with that described in the preceding verses, but, as is 
expressly declared, occurred later ; Joseph came, not as 
before, on his father's invitation, but of his own motion 
on hearing of his father's increased illness ; and the sub- 
ject of the interview is altogether different, concerning 
not Jacob's burial but the adoption and blessing of Jo- 
seph's sons. 

Moreover, xlvii. 29-31 cannot be sundered from ch. 
xlviii. The opening words of xlviii. 1, " And it came to 
pass after these things," is an explicit reference to what 
immediately precedes. The critics tell us that this is a 
formula belonging to E ; but there is nothing in E with 
which to connect it. Dillmann finds traces of E in xlvii. 
12-27, but derives this paragraph in its present form 
from J, and besides, he holds that it has been transposed 
from its original position at the end of ch. xli. Accord- 
ingly the last statement in E is xlvi. 5a, " and Jacob rose 
up from Beersheba " to go to Egypt. 

And in addition to this formal reason there is a ma- 
terial one, which is still more decisive. The effect of 
separating ch. xlviii. from the verses that immediately 
precede is that while P and E record Jacob's adoption 
of Manasseh and Ephraim, J makes no mention of it, 
and so does not explain how they came to be included 



512 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

in the number of the tribes, as they are ever after in J 
as well as E and P. Wellliausen recognizes this, and 
admits that the interview of Jacob with Joseph in xlvii. 
29-31 is incomplete ; and that J must likewise have con- 
tained a parallel to ch. xlviii., only K has not seen fit to 
preserve it. Dillmann seeks to escape the same diffi- 
culty by an elaborate dissection of ch. xlviii., in order to 
obtain for J a share of its contents. These expedients 
for relieving a difficulty of their own creation simply 
show that these chapters cannot be separated. The sep- 
aration is no sooner effected than they must be brought 
together again. 

The necessity of finding P, J, and E in ch. xlviii. cre- 
ates a fresh difficulty in regard to the disposal of vs. 1, 
2. These verses are essential to the following narrative ; 
hence they are variously assigned by different critics, with 
the effect of leaving the account in some of the docu- 
ments Avithout any proper introduction. 

Vs. 3-6 are assigned to P because of the evident allu- 
sion to xxxv. 10-12, and are regarded as his account of 
Jacob's adoption of the two sons of Joseph. But the 
inverted order, " Ephraim and Manasseh " (ver. 5 ; see 
xli. 50-52 ; xlvi. 20) requires for its explanation vs. 17- 
19, showing that these cannot be attributed to different 
documents. Dillmann has no resource but to assume that 
R has altered the text. The adoption and the subse- 
quent blessing are consequently successive parts of the 
transaction, and cannot be set over against each other as 
though each was a complete and variant account of the 
whole affair. 

Ver. 7 is a fresh source of perplexity to the critics. 
They cannot imagine why Jacob should have spoken just 
here of Rachel's death and burial. Some consider it a 
later gloss ; but it is more unaccountable as an interpola- 
tion than as an original constituent of the text. For 



adoption of Joseph's sons (xlvii. 28-xlviii. 22) 513 

what conceivable motive could any one have for inserting 
what has no apparent connection with the subject of the 
chapter? An additional perplexity arises from the fact 
that "Paddan" (abridged from Paddan-aram) is a P word, 
while the body of the verse is evidently based upon xxxv. 
16, 19, E. This might be avoided by referring the latter 
passage to P ; but then the opportunity of creating an 
apparent discrepancy between it and xxxv. 22b-26 P 
would be lost. If P had just before said that Benjamin 
was born at Ephrath, he could not have intended to in- 
clude him in the general statement that Jacob's sons 
were born in Paddan-aram. In spite, however, of its 
manifest dependence upon an E passage, Wellhausen and 
Dillmann follow Noldeke in ascribing ver. 7 to P, as well 
as in assuming that in the document P it was directly 
connected with xlix. 29 sqq., and was suggested by the 
thought that Rachel alone was buried elsewhere than in 
the family burying-ground which Abraham had pur- 
chased. R is credited with having transposed vs. 3-7 to 
its present position, and thus converted what was said 
by Jacob in the presence of all his sons into an address 
to Joseph. Kuenen, 1 with more critical consistency, 
alleges that the acquaintance with both P and E, which 
is presupposed in ver. 7, makes it necessary to attribute 
it to R ; still, as he confesses, the question remains "how 
R could have inserted it in so inapposite a place." Erom 
this he seeks relief in the attempted solution of Budde, 
who never hesitates at any extravagance of conjecture to 
accomplish his purpose. According to Budde, in P's nar- 
rative, xlviii. 3-6 was immediately followed by xlix. 29- 
33, and the last clause of ver. 31 read, "and there I bu- 
ried Leah and Rachel." As this flatly contradicted xxxv. 
16 sqq., R struck out the words "and Rachel," inserting 
instead the statement respecting her death and burial, 
1 Hexateuch, p. 327. 
33 



514 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

which is now found in xlviii. 7, and placed this whole 
paragraph thus modified directly after xlviii. 1, 2. At a 
later time another redactor rearranged the text by trans- 
ferring xlix. 29-32 from the place where his predecessor 
had put it to its present position after the blessing of 
Jacob (xlix. 1-28) ; but "xlviii. 7 was left where it was, 
and thus came to occupy its present very singular posi- 
tion." All this wonderful amount of conjectural erasure, 
interpolation, transposition, and rearrangement x is sum- 
moned to remove a difficulty which is no difficulty at 
all, except as it is created by the critical partition. What 
was more natural than that Jacob, in speaking to the son 
of his beloved Rachel, and recalling the divine manifes- 
tation granted to him at Luz (xxxv. 9-15), should be led 
to speak of the sorrow that befell him immediately after 
in the death of Joseph's mother (vs. 16 sqq.) ? 

By giving vs. 3-7 to P, on account of El Shaddai and 
other alleged criteria, the critics make of it a discon- 
nected fragment, severed from its appropriate introduc- 
tion and from the rest of the scene in which it has its 
proper place. After this has been separated from the 
remainder of the chapter, a further difficulty arises from 
the intermingling of heterogeneous criteria ; Elohim, a 
mark of E, runs through the chapter (vs. 9, 11, 15, 20, 21) ; 
but so does Israel, a mark of J (vs. 2b, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 
(20), 21), these diverse criteria meeting at times in the 
same sentence. Wellhausen makes no attempt to divide 
them, but gives the whole to E, affirming that it every- 
where shows his peculiarities, and that henceforward R 
no longer preserves the distinction between J and E in 

1 Dillmaun's comment upon this proposal of Budde is, "How super- 
fluous, since the alleged contradiction was already removed by erasing 
' and Rachel ' ! and what an injustice to P to introduce into it by an 
emendation a contradiction to universal tradition, in order then to let it 
be harmonized by R ! Such criticism would scarcely be admissible even 
in the case o? profane writers." 



adoption of Joseph's sons (xlyii. 28-xlviii. 22) 515 

their respective use of Israel and Jacob. But as there is 
no reason why he should discontinue it here, if he had 
observed it at all, the admission that it is inadmissible 
as a criterion in this and the following chapters, dis- 
credits its legitimacy in those that have gone before. 

Dillmann, with sturdy consistency, makes a bold at- 
tempt to preserve both these criteria, and to partition the 
chapter on this basis. As the natural result J and E 
receive separate portions of the narrative, which when 
sundered can be made to appear to give variant rep- 
resentations of the affair. Thus in E nothing is said of 
Jacob's blindness ; he embraces and kisses Joseph's 
sons, but blesses Joseph, placing Ephraim before Ma- 
nasseh, and giving Shechem to Joseph. In J the prefer- 
ence of Ephraim is the central point of the representa- 
tion, and the blessing is bestowed upon Joseph's sons. 
Jacob, who is blind, crosses his hands in order to place 
his right hand on the head of Ephraim, to which Joseph 
objects, but Jacob insists. 

Notwithstanding its ingenuity, however, this partition 
is not successful. Dillmann admits that in vs. 8, 11, 21 
Israel occurs where he would have expected Jacob. In 
ver. 8 "Israel beheld Joseph's sons," showing that the 
blindness of ver. 10 J was not total, and hence not incon- 
sistent with ver. 11 E ; in vs. 11, 21, " Israel said unto 
Joseph " is given to J, but as Elohim occurs in what he 
says, this is given to E. Kautzsch seeks to remedy the 
matter by assuming that R has in these instances sub- 
stituted "Israel" for "Jacob;" but why he should do 
so it is hard to see. In his last edition Dillmann, while 
retaining his partition, admits that Israel cannot here be 
made a criterion, since it is carried through the en- 
tire narrative. He attempts to explain it by saying 
that in this instance " R made J the basis and only 
worked in E." A much simpler account of the matter is 



516 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOIi 

that Jacob is used (vs. 2a, 3) as the personal name ; but 
as the prominent thought throughout the chapter is the 
elevation of Ephraim and Manasseh to be the heads of 
separate tribes in the national organization, the name 
Israel was especially appropriate. 

And the attempt to create a distinction between vs. 
15, 16, 20, E, and ver. 19 J, as though the blessing was 
given to Joseph in the former, but to his sons in the lat- 
ter, is altogether futile ; for Joseph is blessed by invok- 
ing a blessing upon " the lads ; " and the allegation that 
R, has substituted " blessed them " for " blessed him " in 
ver. 20 is at variance with the contents of the verse. In 
fact, by this partition the whole of the blessing proper is 
given to E, and only the preliminary arrangements, put- 
ting the boys in position and placing the hands on their 
heads with Joseph's disapproval and Jacob's insistence, 
are reserved for J ; but these manifestly belong together, 
and cannot form two separate narratives of the trans- 
action. 

A duplicate narrative is inferred from the circumstance 
that Joseph is twice said to have brought his sons to his 
father (vs. 10b, 13b). But this is not a twofold mention 
of the same act. They were first led to Jacob, who affec- 
tionately embraced them ; they were then placed in the 
proper position before him to receive his formal bless- 
ing. 

It is further claimed that vs. 15, 16 interrupt the account 
of Jacob's crossing his hands, and that vs. 17-19 interrupt 
the continuity of the blessing ; hence it is inferred that 
something has in each case been intruded from another 
narrative. This simply means that the critic differs from 
the writer in regard to the proper arrangement of the 
material which he has introduced into his narrative. 
He saw fit to continue Jacob's action as far as vs. 15, 16 
before proceeding to say in vs. 17-19 how Joseph inter- 



ADOPTIOX OF JOSEPH'S SONS (XL VII. 28-XLVIIL 22) 517 

ruptecl it. On the critics' hypothesis E thought this to 
be the best disposition of the matter ; why may not the 
original writer have been of this opinion ? 

There is no inrplication in ver. 11 that this was the 
first time that Jacob had seen Joseph's sons, any more 
than that it was the first time that he had seen Joseph 
himself since his arrival in Egypt. There is no ground, 
therefore, for assuming a discrepancy with xlvii. 28, and 
hence a diversity of writers. 

Nor does ver. 22 conflict with statements elsewhere. 
The portion or ridge (Heb., shechem), which Jacob gives 
to Joseph, and " which," he says, " I took out of the 
hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow," 
refers to the capture and sack of Shechem by the sons of 
Jacob (xxxiv. 27-29), which Jacob deprecated (ver. 30), 
and strongly condemned (xlix. 5-7), but which, neverthe- 
less, was the act of his house, or of the clan of which he 
was the responsible head ; and the property acquired in 
a manner which he so sharply censures he bestows not 
upon those who participated iu the deed, but upon 
Joseph, as a mark of special favor, and an earnest of his 
future inheritance in the laud of promise. Dillmann ad- 
mits the reference to, and correspondence with, the pas- 
sage named above, but claims that a diverse representa- 
tion of the transaction is given in other parts of ch. 
xxxiv., which was showu to be unfounded when that 
chapter was under discussion. There is no need, there- 
fore, of supposing that " took " is a prophetic preterite 
i^Tuch), or that Shechem is not referred to, but some 
other district whose capture is not recorded I Kurtz \, or 
that the allusion is to the land purchased at Shechem 
by Jacob (xxxiii. 19 ; Josh. xxiv. 32), which he may sub- 
sequently have had to defend by force of arms, or of al- 
tering the text, with Kuenen, into " not with my sword and 
with my bow," or imagining that "sword" and "bow" 



518 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

are figuratively used to denote purchase-money as the 
efficient instrument of gaining possession. 

The following divine names occur in this section : El 
Shaddai (ver. 3), with allusion to xxxv. 11, and to the 
almighty power which pledged the fulfilment of the 
promise; Elohim (vs. 9, 11, 20), with reference to gen- 
eral providential blessings; ha-Elohim (ver. 15), "the 
God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did 
walk, the God, who fed me all my life long," is but a 
paraphrase of Jehovah; Elohim (ver. 21) is demanded 
by the contrast of the human with the divine ; Jacob 
dies, but God the creator and governor of all will be 
with his descendants. 

MARKS OP P 

1. Statement of age (xlvii. 28). See ch. vi.-ix., Marks 
of P, No. 2, ch. xvi., No. 1. 

2. The days of the years of the life of (ver 28). See 
ch. xxiii., Marks of P, No. 5. 

3. The back reference to xxxv. 6, 9, 11 ; the common 
authorship of these passages is not at variance with, but 
involved in, the unity of Genesis, which we maintain. 

4. *mti btf God Almighty (xlviii. 3). See ch. xxvi. 34- 
xxviii. 9, Marks of P, No. 5. 

5. Dbiy Wins: everlasting 'possession (ver. 4). See ch. 
xvii., Marks of P, No. 7 and 17. 

6- T"^** ^yyt ty see< ^ a ft er ^ iee ( ver - ^)* ^ ee c ^* yi, ~ 

ix., Marks "of P, No, 17. 

7. Tbin beget (ver. 6). See ch. vi.-ix., Marks of P, 
No. 20, ch. xvii., No. 10. 

8. Paddan (ver. 7). See ch. xxv. 19-34, Marks of P, 
No. 4. 

MARKS OP E 

1. The unusual form of the infinitive Htf*) (xlviii. 11), 

as SW (xxxi. 28), r\W (1. 20), with suf. into? (Ex. xviii. 



JACOB S BLESSING AND DEATH (CH. XLIX.) 519 

18) E ; there are but two examples besides in the Old 
Testament, nip (Prov. xvi. 16), and in» (Prov. xxxi. 1). 

2. ?f«bnn the angel (ver. 16). See ch. xvi., Marks of 
J, No. 1. 

3. TQTD DPI fcTig? m^ ?i<x?fte shall he called on them (ver. 
16) ; this is compared to xxi. 12 E, " in Isaac shall thy 
seed be called." 

4. b^S thought (ver. 11) ; nowhere else in this sense. 

5. rDfi grow, as fishes increase (ver. 16), occurs no- 
where else. 

Such rare forms and expressions are no indication of a 
writer's habitual style. 

marks or J 

1. T»*X younger (ver. 14). See xix. 29-38, Marks of J, 
No. 2. 

2. "jtftt refused (ver. 19); besides in J (xxxvii. 35; 
xxxix. 8; Ex. iv. 23; vii. 14; x. 3; xvi. 28); in E (Ex. 
xxii. 16 (E. V., ver. 17) ; Num. xx. 21 ; xxii. 13, 14) ; in D 
(Dent. xxv. 7). 

The majority of critics refer the verses containing 
these words to E. 

Jacob's blesse\ t g and death (ch. xlxx.) 

Dillmann and Schrader follow Knobel in assigning to 
P vs. la, 28b-33. But that Jacob's address to his sons 
(vs. lb-28a) cannot belong to P, notwithstanding " Shad- 
dai," Almighty (ver. 25), is argued from Jehovah (ver. 
18), from the depreciation of Levi (ver. 7), from the 
usage of this document, which nowhere else contains a 
poetical passage, and from the lack of correspondence 
between this address and ver. 28b, " he blessed them, 
every one according to his blessing he blessed them ; " 



520 THE GENERATIONS OP JACOB 

this, it is alleged, is quite inapplicable to what is said to 
Eeuben, Simeon, and Levi (vs. 3-7), which is the reverse 
of a blessing. Nor can it belong to E, since vs. 5-7 are 
inconsistent with xlviii. 22, and ver. 4 with the prefer- 
ence shown to Keuben in xxxvii. 21, 22, 29, 30 ; xlii. 22, 
37 ; and in xlviii. 8 sqq. Jacob blesses Joseph, but not 
his other sons. It is accordingly referred to J not as 
composed by him, and consequently not on grounds of 
diction and style, but as a pre-existing writing incorpo- 
rated in his work, which is thought to be corroborated by 
previous allusions to what is here said of Keuben (ver. 4, 
cf. xxxv. 22), and of Simeon and Levi (vs. 5-7, cf. xxxiv. 
25, 26, 30), as well as by the prominence given to Judah 
(vs. 8-12). 

Arguments which are merely inferences from the un- 
proved partition hypothesis amount to nothing, and 
may be dismissed without further remark. The fact is 
that there is no warrant for attaching this address of the 
dying Jacob to any one of the so-called documents in 
distinction from the others. It has been inserted in its 
place by the author of Genesis as a whole, and contains 
nothing inconsistent with any part of the book. That 
the reproofs administered to Reuben, Simeon, and Levi 
are intimately related to the passages which record the 
facts here referred to is obvious and is freely admitted ; 
and there is not a single passage which they antagonize. 
The general tenor of this final address of Jacob to his 
sons is that of blessing, and amply justifies the language 
used respecting it in ver. 28b. It should also be ob- 
served that while Reuben is degraded from the dignity 
of the firstborn in consequence of his shameful conduct, 
and Simeon and Levi are severely censured for their 
deed of cruelty and violence, and a penalty affixed, they 
are not utterly disowned or prohibited from sharing in 
the blessings and privileges of the covenant people. It 



Jacob's blessing and death (ch. xlix.) 521 

has before been shown that there is no variance between 
vs. 5-7 and xlviii. 22 (see p. 517) ; and that the passages 
in which Reuben is prominent do not clash with those 
which give the preference to Judah (see pp. 448, 475- 
477) ; there is no inconsistency in the representations 
anywhere made respecting them. The weakness and 
inefficiency of Reuben appear in perpetual contrast 
with Judah's manly vigor and strength of character ; 
and the confidence which Jacob reposes in the latter, 
together w 7 ith his distrust of the former, corresponds 
with his attitude toward them in this address. 



NO VATICINIUM POST EVENTUM. 

The critics try to fix the age of this blessing of Jacob 
on the assumption that it is a vaticinium post eventum. 
Tuch refers it to the time of Samuel when the tribe of 
Levi was in ill-repute from the gross misconduct of the 
sons of Eli and the capture of the ark ; Ewald refers it 
to the time of Samson, the famous judge from the tribe 
of Dan ; Knobel to the reign of David ; Reuss to the time 
of David and Solomon ; Wellhausen to the period of the 
schism and the rival kingdoms of Judah and Joseph ; 
Stade to the time of Ahab ; Dillmann seeks to make it all 
square with the time of the Judges. But the fact is that 
it is impracticable to find any one period when this 
blessing could have been composed with the view of 
setting forth the existing state of things. The sceptre in 
Judah found no adequate fulfilment until the reign of 
David; and from that time forth the consideration en- 
joyed by the tribe of Levi was such that it could not 
possibly have been spoken of in the terms here em- 
ployed. So that Kuenen, in despair of finding any one 
date for the entire blessing, supposes it to be made up of 
brief sayings which circulated separately in the tribes to 



522 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

which they severally related. But even this will not solve 
the problem. For the censures passed upon the first 
three cannot be separated from the blessing of Judah, 
for which they evidently prepare the way, as he succeeds 
to the right of primogeniture vacated by his predecessors. 
The prominence given to Judah and Joseph above their 
brethren is clearly intentional, not accidental ; and sev- 
eral of the blessings would be insignificant or unmean- 
ing, if taken by themselves and disconnected from the 
rest. 

The structure and contents of this blessing make it im- 
possible to explain it as a vaticinium post eventum. What 
is said respecting Levi compels to the conclusion that it 
is pre-Mosaic. A dispersion resulting from their priestly 
rank could not after the time of Moses be spoken of as a 
sentence for the misdeed of their ancestor. The sentence 
was fulfilled in that the Levites had no inheritance in 
Canaan, but special habitations were assigned to them in 
the territory of the other tribes, not, however, as a degra- 
dation but a distinction. They were the ministers of the 
sanctuary, and the Lord was their inheritance. The 
curse was turned into a blessing. The language in 
which Moses speaks of Levi in his farewell utterance 
(Deut. xxxiii. 8-11) is as different as possible from that 
before us. The whole blessing of Jacob is only compre- 
hensible as utterances of the dying patriarch, modified 
by personal reminiscences, by insight into the characters 
of his sons, and by their very names, with its ejaculation 
of pious faith, which looked forward to the fulfilment of 
the promises so long delayed (ver. 18) ; and as a forecast- 
ing of the future which met its accomplishment at sepa- 
rate epochs and in unexpected ways, and which, while 
clear and sharp in a few strongly drawn outlines, is vague 
in others, and has no such exactness in minute details as 
suggests actual historical experience. The only instance, 



JACOB'S BLESSING AND DEATH (CH. XLIX.) 523 

in which the specific location of a tribe in the land of 
promise is hinted at, is in apparent disagreement with 
the subsequent allotment under Joshua. " Zebulun shall 
dwell at the haven of the sea ; and he shall be for an 
haven of ships ; and his border shall be unto Zidon " 
(ver. 13). And yet Zebulun was separated from the Sea 
of Galilee by Naphtali, and Asher lay between Zebulun 
and the Mediterranean. Fortunately the critics are here 
precluded by their own hypothesis from discrediting the 
truth of the prophecy. Dillmann explains that " the 
boundary between Asher and Zebulun is not strictly de- 
fined (Josh. xix. 14, 15), and therefore the possibility that 
Zebulun bordered on the Mediterranean with a strip of 
land is not excluded ; " and he appeals in confirmation to 
Josephus ("Antiquities," 5, 8, 22, " Jewish Wars," 3, 3, 1). 
It is observable, however, that the Song of Deborah (Judg. 
v. 17), after the settlement in Canaan, in adopting expres- 
sions from the verse which we are considering, applies 
them to other tribes, whose territory lay more entirely 
upon the coast and thus speaks of Ban as abiding in 
ships and Asher as continuing on the seashore. This 
suggests what might have been expected in Gen. xlix., 
if it had been composed after Israel's occupation of 
Canaan. 

The same thing appears from the language of ver. 1, 
which announces as the theme of the prophecy what 
shall take place " in the last days." As this expression 
is found repeatedly in the prophets, it has been urged as 
an indication that this blessing was composed or ver. 1 
prefixed to it in the prophetic period. But "the last 
days " always denotes the ultimate future. Jacob could 
look forward to the time when the promises made to 
himself and his fathers would be fulfilled as the ultimate 
bound of his hopes and expectations. But no one living 
at any time that the critics may fix upon as the date of 



524 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

this chapter could have imagined that the ultimate future 
was already reached, or could describe the state of things 
then existing as what was to befall Israel in " the last 
days." 

All this points to the genuineness of this blessing as 
really the utterance of Jacob, which it claims to be and 
is declared to be. Its antiquity is further evidenced, as 
is remarked by Dillmann, by the peculiar figures em- 
ployed in vs. 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21-26, and its 
many rare expressions that were disused in later times, 
Tns bubbling over, Wliil excel (ver. 4), STlD'a sivord (ver 5), 
p£TO ruler's staff (ver. 10), mo clothes (ver. 11), ^bpn 
red (ver. 12), D^nBOT sheep/olds (ver. 14), "psnap adder 
(ver. 17), rnbitf slender (ver. 21), and much besides in vs. 
22-26. To which add the citations from it or allusions 
to it in the Mosaic period ; comp. ver. 9 and Num. xxiv. 
9, xxiii. 24 ; vs. 13, 14, Zebulun before Issachar and sub- 
sisting by the sea, cf. Deut. xxxiii. 18, 19 ; vs. 25, 26, cf. 
Deut. xxxiii. 13-16. 

The words, " And Jacob called unto his sons " (ver. la), 
are sundered from their connection, and linked with vs. 
28b-33 P, because the name " Jacob " is regarded as a 
mark of P. But as this deprives the blessing of its in- 
troduction, which is here indispensable, it is neces- 
sary to assume that it was originally prefaced by a like 
statement from the pen of J ; though no reason can be 
given why E should have removed it in order to substi- 
tute words identical in signification, but belonging to a 
different place. "Wellhausen avoids this senseless trans- 
position by disregarding here, as in the preceding chap- 
ter, the alleged criterion from the name of the patri- 
arch. 

Jacob's charge to his sons to bury him with his fathers 
in the cave of Machpelah (vs. 29, sqq.), is held to be a 
variant account by P of the transaction recorded by J in 



Jacob's blessing and death (ch. xlix.) 525 

xlvii. 29-31, P representing that to be enjoined upon all 
his sons, which according to J was addressed to Joseph 
alone. Identifying distinct events, as we have seen from 
the beginning of Genesis to the end, is a favorite artifice 
of the critics, of which they make abundant use in ef- 
fecting the partition of the text. It was natural and ap- 
propriate that Jacob should in the first instance make 
his appeal in this matter to Joseph, who was invested 
with supreme authority, and without whose permission 
it could not be done ; and when his concurrence had 
been secured, that he should further make his wish 
known to all his sons, by whom it was to be carried into 
effect. The emphatic iteration in vs. 29-32, as in the 
original account of the transaction referred to (ch. xxiii.), 
and the repetition of the identical terms of the original 
purchase, shows the stress laid by the writer on this initial 
acquisition of a permanent possession in the land of Ca- 
naan. 

The middle clause of ver. 33, " he gathered up his feet 
into his bed," contains a plain allusion to the previous 
mention of his bed in xlvii. 31 ; xlviii. 2. In conse- 
quence, Dillmann is constrained to cut out this clause 
and assign it to J, though there is nothing in J with 
which to connect it. Budde proposes to find a connec- 
tion for it by attributing the first clause of the verse like- 
wise to J ; but in doing so it is necessary for him to 
change "commanding" into "blessing," so as to link it 
with vs. 1-27, instead of the immediately preceding- 
verses. All this only shows the embarrassment which 
the critics create for themselves by partitioning among 
different documents what is one indivisible narrative. 

The divine names, El, God, and Shaddai, Almighty, both 
suggestive of omnipotence, occur in ver. 25, and Jeho- 
vah in ver. 18, where Jacob gives expression to his own 
pious trust. 



526 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

MAKES OF P (VS. 29-33) 

1. The back reference to ch. xxiii. This is readily ad- 
mitted, but no argument can be derived from it in favor 
of critical partition. 

2. 215 expired (ver. 33). See ch. vi.-ix., Marks of P, 
No. 18. T 

3. mintf possession (ver. 30). See ch. xvii., Marks of 
P, No/ 7." 

4. 1^72?"bs5 v)D^5 was gathered unto his people (ver. 33). 
See ch/xxv. 1-ilJ Marks of P, No. 5. 

5. 1$53 y *itf land of Canaan (ver. 30). See ch. xii. 5, 
Marks'of P* No. 4. 

6. The connection with 1. 12, 13. The connection is 
obvious, but yields no proof of critical partition. 

THE BURIAL OF JACOB AND DEATH OF JOSEPH (CH. L.) 

The critics are unanimous in referring vs. 12, 13 to P; 
Kayser and Schrader agree with Knobel in assigning the 
remainder of the chapter to J on the basis of an earlier 
source ; Wellhausen, followed by Dillmann, attributes 
vs. 4-11, 14 to J ; vs. 15-26 to E ; Wellhausen does not 
venture to determine the source of vs. 1-3, together with 
the first words of ver. 4 ; Dillmann thinks that they are 
probably to be attributed to J, who may have written on 
the basis of a previous account by E. The reason of the 
hesitation about these opening verses is that the refer- 
ence to embalming is indicative of the same author as 
in ver. 26 E, while " Israel " (ver. 2) and " fell upon his 
father's face " are esteemed marks of J. Moreover, J 
here describes the preparations for the burial of Jacob 
without having mentioned the fact of his death ; this is 
found only in P (xlix. 33). 

We are told that there are two distinct and varying 
accounts of Jacob's interment. That, in vs. 4-11, 14, is 



THE BURIAL OF JACOB (CH. L.) 527 

assigned to J, because of the explicit reference in ver. 5 
to Joseph's solemn promise to bury his father in Ca- 
naan (xlvii. 29-31) ; accordingly in this account Joseph 
conducts the funeral with great pomp and an immense 
retinue. The other account by P (vs. 12, 13) is con- 
formed to the charge given by Jacob to all his sons 
(xlix. 29-32) ; in it no prominence is given to Joseph, 
who is not even separately mentioned ; Jacob is carried 
to Canaan by his sons, and there buried in the spot 
which he had indicated to them. But it has already 
been shown that the direction respecting his burial given 
by Jacob to Joseph, and that to all his sons, are not va- 
riant reports of the same transaction in different docu- 
ments. Hence the reference to them both in this chap- 
ter affords no argument for a diversity of sources here. 
And besides, the proposed partition is impracticable ; it 
simply creates two fragments, neither of which is com- 
plete without the other. In J Joseph goes with a great 
company to bury his father ; he comes back after bury- 
ing his father ; but of the actual burial nothing is said. 
The only account of that is in the verses which are cut 
out and assigned to P. Again, in P the sons of Jacob 
carry him to Canaan and bury him, but nothing is said 
of their return to Egypt ; that is only to be found in 
ver. 14, which is given to J. 

It is claimed, however, that there is a discrepancy as 
to the place of interment ; but the critics are not agreed 
as to what or where this discrepancy is. Kayser, to 
whom Wellhausen gives his adherence, finds it in ver. 5, 
which he translates, "in my grave which I have bought 
for me in the land of Canaan, there shalt thou bury me." 
From this he infers that the place intended can be no 
other than the piece of ground at Shechem purchased 
from the sons of Ham or, as related by J (xxxiii. 18-20), 
(other critics refer these verses to E). And he goes on 



528 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB 

to say that this half -concealed contradiction in respect to 
the grave of Jacob at Shechem, or at Hebron, is the 
token of a profound difference between J and P. J, a 
native of the northern kingdom of Israel, 1 is interested 
for Shechem in Ephraim ; P, who belonged to the 
southern kingdom, is strongly attached to Hebron in 
Judah. As this interpretation of Kayser is inconsistent 
with xlvii. 29, 30, to which ver. 5 expressly refers, he 
is obliged to assume that these verses have been altered 
by B into conformity with xlix. 29, 30 ; though why he 
should have altered them and allowed ver. 5 to remain 
without change does not appear. Noldeke and others 
find the discrepancy in ver. 10; the burial, he says, 
must have taken place where the lamentation was made. 
Kautzsch finds a doublet in ver. 10b, and insists that 
three distinct places of interment are spoken of, repre- 
senting as many variant narratives, the threshing-floor 
of Atad, Abel-mizraim, and the cave of Machpelah. But 
the difficulty with these attempts to discover a discrep- 
ancy is that the cave of Machpelah is the only place 
at which the burial is said to have been ; and with this 
xlvii. 30 agrees. 

A difficulty has been found in the words " beyond 
Jordan " (ver. 11), as though they implied a very circui- 
tous route for the funeral procession, and were contra- 
dicted by "Canaanites" in the same verse, who dwelt 
west of the Jordan. Jerome, however, identifies Abel- 
mizraim with Beth-hoglah, in the border of Judah, and 
Benjamin (Josh., xv. 6; xviii. 19). May not "beyond 
Jordan" mean beyond Jordan, westward, as in Deut. xi. 30, 
and be an incidental confirmation of Mosaic authorship ? 

Verses 15-26 are assigned to E on account of the re- 
peated occurrence of Elohim, notwithstanding the two- 
fold statement of age (vs. 22, 26), such as is regularly else- 

1 Other critics make "him a citizen of Judah. 



THE BURIAL OF JACOB (CH. L.) 529 

where given to P, 1 and two phrases which are regarded 
as characteristic of J, " spake to their heart " (ver. 21 as 
xxxiv. 3), and "the land which he sware to Abraham, to 
Isaac, and to Jacob " (ver. 24) ; in the passages assigned 
to E no promise is given of the land of Canaan to any- 
one of the patriarchs. The proof of unity arising from 
these frequent cross-references from one document to 
the other can only be evaded by using the critical knife 
and invoking the agency of K. 

P records the death and the interment ; J the embalm- 
ing, the funeral procession, and the return from the grave ; 
E the subsequent apprehensions of Joseph's brothers 
and his generous treatment of them. And yet these ex- 
tracts from separate works, as they are said to be, match 
as perfectly as though they had come from the same pen, 
and the continuity of the narrative is as accurately pre- 
served. 

Dillmann imagines that ver. 21 implies the continuance 
of the famine, and hence infers a discrepancy between 
E and P (xlvii. 28) with respect to the time of Jacob's 
death. This is built on the groundless assumption that 
Joseph could not continue to support his brethren after 
the years of dearth were ended. 

The divine names are " the God of thy father " (ver. 
17), which is a paraphrase of Jehovah, and Elohim (vs. 
19, 20, 24, 25), which is appropriate where the divine is 
contrasted with the human. 

MARKS OF J 

1. DD^^a )T} ^ftxm 8J D£ if now I have found favor 
in your eyes (ver. 4). See ch. xii. 10-20, Marks of J, No. 
3; ch. vi. 1-8, No. 10 ; ch. xviii., xix., No. 28. 

2. "\!3Ti$3 *teft speak in the ears of (ver. 4) ; besides in J, 
xliv. 18 ; Dent, xxxii. 44 ; in J or E, Num. xiv. 28 ; in E, 

1 Kayser and Schrader cut out ver. 22 and give it to P. 
34 



530 THE GENERATIONS OE JACOB 

Gen. xx. 8 ; Ex. xi. 2 ; in P, Gen. xxiii. 13, 16 ; in D, Deut. 
v. 1 ; Josh. xx. 4 ; in Ed, Dent. xxxi. 28, 30. 

3. pn only (ver. 8). See ch. vi. 1-8, Marks of J, No. 7. 

4. ID") chariots, nPtihs horsemen (ver. 9). See ch. xlvii. 
12-27, Marks of J, No'. 4. 

5. ^123 great, grievous (vs. 9-11). See ch. xlii.-xliv. 
Marks of J, No. 14. 

6. &OJ? ]?"b? therefore ivas called (ver. 11) ; besides in 
J, xi. 9 ; xvi. 14 ; xix. 22 ; xxv. 30 ; xxix. 34 ; xxxi. 48 
(doublet in E connection) ; xxxiii. 17 ; Josh. vii. 26 (JE) ; 
but also in E, Gen. xxi. 31 ; Ex. xv. 23. This phrase is 
contrasted with and he called the name, Gen. xxxii. 3, 31 
(E. V., vs. 2, 30), as though the latter was indicative of a 
different document ; yet it occurs repeatedly in J, e.g., 
Gen. iii. 20 ; iv. 17, 26 ; xix. 37, 38 ; xxvi. 20, 21, 22, 33; 
xxxviii. 3, 29, 30, Num. xi. 3. 

MAKES OF E 

1. The connection of vs. 24-26 with Ex. xiii. 19 ; Josh, 
xxiv. 32, which is entirely consistent with the unity of 
the Pentateuch. 

2. babs nourish (ver. 21) ; only twice besides in the 
Pentateuch (xlv. 11 ; xlvii. 12 E). It occurs exclusively 
with reference to Joseph's promise to nourish his father 
and brethren in Egypt. Ch. xlvii. 12 is in a context 
which is assigned to other documents ; but this solitary 
verse is cut out of its connection and given to E because 
of this word and its manifest relation to xlv. 11. See 
ch. xlvii. 12-27, Marks of E, No. 2. 

3. fito? unusual form of the construct infinitive. See 
ch. xlvii. 28-xlviii. 22, Marks of E, No. 1. 

4. ^ n^'b$ ntinn am I in the place of God (ver. 19) ; 
but once besides in the Pentateuch (xxx. 2 E). 

5. ^nn-b? upon the knees of (ver. 23) ; besides in the 
Pentateuch only (xxx. 3 E). 



CONCLUSION 

We have now completed the critical study of the 
Book of Genesis, and it only remains to sum up the 
result of our investigations. The question before us 
is whether Genesis is, as tradition unanimously affirms, 
a continuous production by a single writer, or, as the 
divisive critics declare, a compilation from different doc- 
uments by different authors and belonging to different 
ages. 

It is to be noted at the outset that there is no proof 
whatever, outside of the book itself, that such documents 
ever existed. And there is no suggestion anywhere that 
the existence of such documents was ever suspected un- 
til recent times. The whole case, then, lies before us. 
Genesis is its own witness. What testimony does it 
give ? 

GEOUNDS OF PAETITION 

Kittel presents the argument for partition in the fol- 
lowing brief but comprehensive manner i 1 " The entire 
Hexateuchal narrative falls apart in a series of strata, 
whose individual constituents are closely connected in 
language, style, and characteristic forms of speech, while 
they stand in the most decided contrast with other nar- 
ratives, which are possibly homogeneous with them or 
related to them in their contents. 

1 Geschichte der Hebraer, pp. 30, 31. This passage is abridged by 
the omission of illustrative examples, since a much more exhaustive 
statement of them will be given from another source. 



532 CONCLUSION 

" In connection with this phenomenon the further fact 
appears that many diversities and contradictions are like- 
wise observable in the narrative material. Of a great 
number of the Hexateuchal narratives we have two or 
more accounts. Some of these repetitions, the number 
of which could easily be swelled ad infinitum, might pos- 
sibly be explained as intentional on the part of the 
writer. At least such an explanation might answer, did 
not the above-mentioned diversity of language almost 
always go hand in hand with the repetition of the matter. 
It is thus already made quite improbable that the repe- 
tition is an addition by the writer himself, or is a 
resumption of the thread of the narrative previously 
dropped by him. But it becomes positively impossible 
by perceiving, what is almost always connected with it, 
that the two or more accounts of the same thing also 
diverge in their substantive matter in a number of feat- 
ures that are sometimes quite important, sometimes 
rather subordinate." 

REPETITIONS AND DISCREPANCIES 

Numberless repetitions with more or less serious dis- 
crepancies and a varied diction would seem indeed to be 
inconsistent with unity of authorship. And when these 
alleged repetitions and discrepancies are massed together 
in a formidable list, as they are by Dillmann, 1 it natu- 
rally makes the impression that such an accumulation of 
arguments must be strong indeed ; and however weak 
and inconclusive particular examples may be when viewed 
singly, the combined force of the whole must be irresisti- 
ble. But arguments must be weighed and not merely 
counted. It only requires a patient examination of these 
cases in detail to show how illusive they are. The entire 

1 Die Genesis, Vorbemerkungen, pp. ix., x. 



REPETITIONS AND DISCREPANCIES 533 

vast array melts into nothingness as soon as their reality 
is tested. 

In Dillmann's classification he adduces what he calls 

1. "Idle repetitions." These are either not repeti- 
tions at all, as Gen. xxi. la and lb, where the first clause 
states the fact and the second the purpose of Jehovah's 
visit to Sarah ; xlvii. 29 sqq. and xlix. 29 sqq., first Ja- 
cob's request of Joseph that he might be buried in Ca- 
naan, then his charge to all his sons to bury him there ; 
or the repetition is for a sufficient reason (iv. 25, 26, and 
v. 1-6), where the birth of Seth and Enosh are included 
in the genealogy from Adam to Noah, and are likewise 
mentioned separately in order to introduce some facts 
concerning them which could not be inserted in the 
genealogy without marring its symmetry and the regu- 
larity of its structure. 

2. " Two or more accounts of the same thing, which 
might possibly be explained by the writer's assuming 
that they were different events or wishing to note the 
variation in the traditions." These are in every instance 
distinct events, which critics assume without reason to 
be identical, in spite of the fact that they are recorded as 
distinct, and are further shown to be distinct by differ- 
ences of time, place, and circumstances, which critics 
arbitrarily convert into the discrepancies of variant tra- 
ditions. It is not different versions of the same story 
when a like peril befalls Sarah in Egypt (xii. 10 sqq.), 
and in Gerar (xx. 1 sqq.), and at a still later time Rebekah 
(xxvi. 7 sqq.) ; or when Hagar flees from her mistress 
before the birth of Ishmael (xvi. 6 sqq.), and she is sub- 
sequently sent away with Ishmael (xxi. 12 sqq.) ; or when 
God ratifies his covenant with Abraham by a visible 
symbol (ch. xv.), and it is afterward ratified by Abraham 
by the seal of circumcision (ch. xvii.) ; or when the promise 
of a son by Sarah is first made to Abraham (xvii. 15-17), 



534 CONCLUSION 

and then in the hearing of Sarah (xviii. 9-12) ; or when 
Jacob obtains the blessing which his father intended for 
Esau (ch. xxvii.), and again receives a parting blessing 
from his father as he was leaving home for Paddan-aram 
(xxviii. 1-5). 

3. " Variant explanations of the same name." These 
are simply allusive references to the signification of the 
name made on different occasions, which of course in- 
volve no discrepancy ; or in some cases they are differ- 
ent suggestions awakened by the sound of the name, 
where there is no pretence of giving its actual derivation, 
and, of course, no ground for the charge that different 
conceptions of its etymology are involved. Thus, with 
allusion to the name Isaac, which means laughter, it is 
related that when his birth was predicted Abraham (xvii. 
17) and Sarah also laughed incredulously (xviii. 12), and 
when he was born Sarah said that God had made her to 
laugh for joy, and all that hear would laugh with her 
(xxi. 6). So Edom, red, is associated with the red color 
of Esau at his birth (xxv. 25), and the red pottage for 
which he sold his birthright (ver. 30). So the twofold 
hire linked with the name Issachar (xxx. 16, 18), and the 
double suggestion of Zebulun (ver. 20) and of Joseph (vs. 
23, 24) ; Mahanaim connected with the host of angels 
xxxii. 3 (E. V., ver. 2), and with Jacob's two bands, ver. 
8 (E. V., 7) ; Ishmael with God's hearing Hagar in her 
affliction (xvi. 11), and hearing the voice of the lad in his 
distress (xxi. 17) ; and Peniel, where Jacob saw the face 
of God (xxxii. 31 (E. V., ver. 30)) and the face of Esau 
(xxxiii. 10) as one seeth the face of God. 

4. "Kepetitions which are mutually exclusive, since 
the thing can only have happened once or in one way." 
Thus the creation (ch. i. and ii.) ; but, as has been abun- 
dantly shown (pp. 9 sqq., 20 sqq.), there is here no dupli- 
cate account and no discrepancy. The number of the 



REPETITIONS AND DISCREPANCIES 535 

animals in the ark and the duration of the flood (ch. vi., 
vii.) ; but there is no inconsistency between the general 
statement that two of every species should be taken and 
the more particular direction to take seven of the clean 
animals ; and the alleged diversity in reckoning the dura- 
tion of the flood is a pure figment of the critics with no 
foundation in the narrative itself. See p. 92. The disper- 
sion of the nations is not differently explained, as though 
that was traced in ch. x. to the multiplication of Noah's 
descendants, which in xi. 1-9 (to which x. 25 alludes) is 
ascribed to immediate divine intervention, since neither 
of these excludes the other. There is no discrepancy in 
regard to the origin of the name Beersheba, which was 
first given by Abraham (xxi. 31), and afterward renewed 
by Isaac (xxvi. 33), who is expressly said to have digged 
again the wells of his father, and called them by the 
names which his father had called them (ver. 18). There 
was a like renewal of the name Israel divinely given to 
Jacob (xxxii. 29 E. V., ver. 28 and xxxv. 10), and of 
Bethel (xxviii. 19 ; xxxv. 15), which Jacob reconsecrated 
by a solemn rite upon his second visit (xxxv. 1, 14), as he 
had engaged to do in memory of God's fulfilment of the 
promise there graciously made (xxviii. 18-22). The ref- 
erence to the conflict with the Shechemites (xlviii. 22) 
differs from the account in ch. xxxiv. simply in this, that 
Jacob as the head of the clan assumes the responsibility 
of the deed of his sons. The alleged discrepancy in re- 
gard to the treatment of Joseph by his brothers and the 
traders who brought him to Egypt (xxxvii. 19-36) is a 
sheer invention of the critics, who have themselves created 
it by an unwarranted partition of the passage. 

5. " Other incompatible statements." The allegation 
that the reduction of human life to one hundred and 
twenty years (vi. 3) is inconsistent with chs. v., 1 xi., etc., 

1 The reference to ch. v. is a slip on the part of Dillmann, as the lives 



536 CONCLUSION 

rests upon a misinterpretation of the former passage, 
which states the limit allowed to the existing generation 
before it should be swept away by the flood, not that of 
human life in general. See pp. 59, 60. Abraham's many 
sons after Sarah's death (xxv. 1, 2) are said to be in con- 
flict with xviii. 11, 12 ; xvii. 17, but his previous child- 
lessness is uniformly attributed to the barrenness of 
Sarah (xi. 30 ; xvi. 1, 2) ; and Dillmann himself admits 
(" Genesis," p. 303) that if Abraham lived to be one hun- 
dred and seventy-five years old (xxv. 7), it would not be 
surprising if he had children after he was one hundred and 
thirty-seven (xxiii. 1 ; cf. xvii. 17). Esau settled in Seir 
when Jacob returned from Paddan-aram (xxxii. 4 sqq., 
E. V., vs. 3 sqq.) is represented to be at variance with 
xxxvi. 6. But Esau's presence in Seir at that time does 
not imply that he had already removed his family and 
his possessions from Canaan, and had abandoned his 
claim upon it in favor of Jacob. That he had no such 
intention then is plain from the manner in which he 
came to meet Jacob (xxxiii. 1), implying a hostile pur- 
pose, and at the very least a determination to prevent, 
or forcibly intercept, his return to Canaan. Jacob so un- 
derstood it (xxxii. 12, E. V., ver. 11) ; and the whole 
narrative shows that Esau's change of mind was due 
to Jacob's earnest wrestling for the divine blessing in 
his alarming situation (xxxii. 28). That Kebekah's nurse 
first came with Jacob from Mesopotamia cannot be in- 
ferred from xxxv. 8, which therefore does not contra- 
dict xxiv. 59. The general statement that Jacob's sons 
were born in Paddan-aram (xxxv. 26) is true of all but 
Benjamin, whose birth near Ephrath had just been re- 
corded (vs. 16-18) ; to insist upon this as a discrepancy is, 

there recorded preceded the sentence in vi. 3, and consequently would 
not have been inconsistent with it, even if it had had the meaning 
which he wrongly attributes to it. 



REPETITIONS AND DISCREPANCIES 537 

on the critics' own theory, to charge the redactor with a 
negligence as great as would be attributable to the original 
writer on the theory of the unity of the book. If the lat- 
ter is not conceivable, neither is the former. The appar- 
ent discrepancy between xxvi. 34 ; xxviii. 9 ; and xxxvi. 
2, 3, as to the names of Esau's wives, is capable of ready 
reconciliation, as was shown in the discussion of ch. xxxvi. 
(pp. 420 sqq.). The alleged discrepancy, in regard to 
Joseph's Egyptian master, between xxxvii. 36 and xxxix. 
1 ; xl. 4, does not exist (pp. 457 sqq.). In reporting to 
the steward their discovery of the money in their sacks 
(xliii. 21), Joseph's brethren may perhaps combine with 
their partial discovery at the inn what they learned 
more fully on reaching home (xlii. 27, 35) ; but even this 
is not certain (pp. 479, 480j. Cain's apprehension that 
he might be slain for the murder of his brother (iv. 
14, 15) is not " enigmatical," if the possible increase of 
Adam's family in one hundred and thirty years (v. 3) be 
considered ; nor his building a " city " (iv. 17), if it be 
remembered that a fortified nomadic encampment would 
be so called in Hebrew (pp. 36, 37). 

6. "The chronology does not agree with the narra- 
tives." It is thought incredible that Sarah should have 
attracted Pharaoh (xii. 11 sqq.) when sixty-five years of 
age (xii. 4 ; xvii. 17), or Abimelech when she was ninety 
(xx. 2) ; but this overlooks patriarchal longevity. Ish- 
mael is not represented in xxi. 14 sqq. to be younger than 
xvii. 24, 25 ; xxi. 5, 8 would make him. There is no in- 
consistency between Isaac's apprehending that his end 
was near (xxvii. 1, 2, 7, 10, 41), and his actually living 
many years longer (xxxv. 28). It is not Rachel but Leah 
that is meant in xxxvii. 10, so that there is no conflict 
with xxxv. 19, which records Rachel's death. The time 
allowed for the birth of Jacob's children (xxx. 25 sqq. ; 
xxxi. 38, 41) is short, but not too short. See p. 348. If 



538 CONCLUSION 

the list of Jacob's descendants in xlvi. 8-27 contains, as 
is probable, a few names of those born after the descent 
into Egypt, it is not inconsistent with the preceding his- 
tory. There is no implication in 1. 21 that the years of 
famine were still continuing, and accordingly no discrep- 
ancy with the previous account of their duration. 

7. " Narratives in which certain parts do not accord 
with the rest, e.g., xxxi. 48-50," where there is no discord 
but that created by critical manipulation ; " or the end 
does not accord with the beginning, e.g., xxiv. 62-67," 
where the discord is purely imaginary. 

The contrarieties and discrepancies, of which such 
account is made as indicative of a diversity of sources, 
thus disappear upon inspection, being mostly due to the 
improper identification of distinct events, or to a critical 
partition by which passages are severed from their con- 
nection and interpreted at variance with it. 1 



THE DIVINE NAMES 

It is claimed, however, that the narratives of Genesis 
and of the Pentateuch arrange themselves into continu- 
ous strata, each of which consistently preserves the same 
style and diction and general character, while differing 
in a marked degree from the others in these respects ; 
and that the discrepancies which are alleged correspond 
with, and are corroborated by, these diversities of lan- 

1 The ease with which narratives of unquestioned unity can be sun- 
dered by the same methods that are employed in the partition of Gene- 
sis and the Pentateuch, and with the same result of apparent discrep- 
ancies between the sundered parts, is illustrated in my Higher Criticism 
of the Pentateuch, pp. 119-125. The same thing is shown in a very 
effective manner, in application to an entire book, in Romans Dissected, 
by E. D. McRealsham, the pseudonym of Dr. C. M. Mead, of Hartford 
Theological Seminary. 



THE DIVINE NAMES 539 

guage and ideas. It is hence inferred that Genesis must 
be a compilation from distinct documents, which can be 
separated from one another by appropriate tests, and 
restored in a good measure to their original form. 

A prominent place is here given to the criterion af- 
forded by the divine names. Certain paragraphs and 
sections make exclusive use of Elohim, while others 
characteristically employ Jehovah, when speaking of the 
Supreme Being. These are called respectively Elohist 
and Jehovist sections, and are attributed to writers hav- 
ing different proclivities in this respect. But it has 
been found impossible to divide these sections so that 
they shall correspond with the alternation of the divine 
names. 

Thus, Elohim occurs in Jehovist sections, viz. : iii. 1, 
3, 5, in the conversation of Eve with the serpent ; iv. 25, 
where Seth is substituted for murdered Abel; vii. 9, 
in the Jehovist's account of Noah's entry into the ark ; 
ix. 27, in the blessing upon Japheth in distinction from 
Shem (ver. 26) ; xxxi. 50, in Laban's covenanting with 
Jacob ; xxxii. 29, 31 (E. V. vs. 28, 30), Jacob's wrestling 
with the angel (so TVellhausen, Kuenen, Kautzsch) ; 
xxxiii. 5, 10, 11, in Jacob's interview with Esau ; xxxix. 
9, Joseph's reply to the solicitations of Potiphar's wife ; 
xliii. 29, Joseph greeting Benjamin ; xliv. 16, Judah's 
confession. El Shaddai also occurs in a Jehovist section 
(xliii. 14), and Shaddai (xlix. 25), which are reckoned 
characteristics of the Elohist. 

Jehovah also occurs in paragraphs attributed to the 
Elohist, where it is necessary to assume that it, or the 
clause containing it, has been inserted by the redactor. 
Thus four times in xv. 1, 2, 7, 8, the vision granted to 
Abraham ; once in xvii. 1, where Jehovah appears to 
him ; again, xx. 18, where he interferes for the protection 
of Sarah ; xxi. lb, where he fulfils his promise to Sarah ; 



540 CONCLUSION 

xxii. 2, Moriali, which is compounded with an abbre- 
viated form of Jehovah, and ver. 11, the angel of Jeho- 
vah ; also xxviii. 21, in Jacob's vow. 

In other cases the admission that the divine names 
occur in the wrong document is only escaped by cutting 
the clauses that contain them out of their connection as 
insertions from another source, or by sundering passages 
that manifestly belong together. Thus the last clause of 
vii. 16 is sundered from the rest of the verse notwith- 
standing the manifest contrast between Jehovah, who 
shut Noah in the ark, and Elohim, who gave command 
for the preservation of the inferior creatures. In xiv. 
22, Jehovah is held to be an insertion by the redactor, 
though it represents God as known to Abraham in dis- 
tinction from what he was to Melchizedek. Abimelech 
covenants with Abraham at Beersheba, and speaks of 
God as Elohim (xxi. 22-32) ; Abraham worshipping there 
calls upon Jehovah (ver. 33) ; but the critics ignoring 
the real reason of the change of names, regard the latter 
as an insertion from J in a narrative of the Elohist. In 
ch. xxii. Elohim demands the sacrifice, Jehovah stays the 
patriarch's hand (pp. 284, 285) ; the critics attribute the 
latter to a different writer, though it is an essential part of 
the narrative. Isaac's blessing pronounced upon Jacob 
(xxvii. 27, 28) is rent asunder because Jehovah and Elo- 
him occur in successive clauses, as often elsewhere in the 
parallelisms of poetry. Jacob's dream (xxviii. 12-17) is 
partitioned because Elohim alternates with Jehovah, so 
that he falls asleep in one document and wakes up in the 
other. The continuous narrative of the birth of Jacob's 
children (ch. xxix., xxx.) is parcelled between the Jeho- 
vist and the Elohist in a very remarkable manner. Ch. 
xxxv. 5 is cut out of an Elohist connection solely and 
avowedly because it alludes to a preceding Jehovist nar- 
rative. In xlviii. 8-11 Israel points to the Jehovist and 



THE DIVINE NAMES 541 

Elohini to the Elolrist, so that a partition can only 
be made by confusing the entire passage. Wellhau- 
sen gives it up; but Dillmann carries it unflinchingly 
through. 

In fact the partition hypothesis is based upon a per- 
sistent disregard of the real reason which governs the 
employment of the divine names," that being attributed 
to the mechanical explanation of a diversity of writers 
which results from the difference of meaning and usage 
of these names themselves. The critics themselves are 
obliged to admit that the Jehovist uses both names as he 
has occasion. This confession completely undermines 
the hypothesis ; for it is placing the use of these names 
upon another footing than the mere habit of different 
writers, and acknowledging that there is an appropriate- 
ness in employing one rather than the other in certain 
connections. 

The distinction between these names is universally 
admitted, as certified by the usage of the entire Hebrew 
Bible. It is stated by Kuenen in a manner which re- 
quires but slight correction in order to solve the whole 
mystery, and to show that they afford no ground what- 
ever for assuming the existence of an Elohist and a 
Jehovist. He says (" Hexateuch," p. 56), " The original 
distinction between Yahwe and Elohim very often ac- 
counts for the use of one of these appellations in prefer- 
ence to the other." Again (p. 58, note 19), 1. " When 
the God of Israel is placed over-against the gods of the 
Gentiles, the former is naturally described by the prop- 
er name Yahwe. 2. When Gentiles are introduced as 
speaking, they use the word Elohim [unless they specifi- 
cally mean the God of the chosen race, when they call 
him by his proper name, Jehovah]. So, too, the Israel- 
ites, when speaking to Gentiles. 3. Where a contrast 
between the divine and the human is in the mind of the 



542 CONCLUSION 

author, Elohim is, at any rate, the more suitable word." 
[4. When God is spoken of in those general aspects of 
his being in which he is related alike to the whole world 
and to all mankind, e.g., in creation and providence, Elo- 
him is the proper word ; but when he is spoken of in his 
special relation to the chosen race as the God of revela- 
tion and of redemption, and the object of their worship, 
Jehovah is the appropriate term.] 1 

It has already been shown that the critical partition of 
Genesis, though shaped with a view to adapt it to the 
occurrence of the divine names, does not in fact corre- 
spond with them, and consequently cannot afford an 
adequate explanation of them. And in the other books 
of the Pentateuch the discrepancy is greater still. 2 On 
the other hand, the simple principles above stated meet 
the case precisely. It has been shown in detail in the 
former part of this volume that every instance in which 
Elohim or Jehovah is found in Genesis is capable of 
ready explanation. It will not be necessary here to re- 
peat at length what was there said. It will be sufficient 
to indicate briefly a few leading facts, which conclusively 
demonstrate that the partition hypothesis has no support 
from the divine names. 

One thing which arrests attention at the outset is the 
great predominance of the name Jehovah in three clearly 

1 In tlie above quotation from Kuenen " Gentiles " has been substi- 
tuted for "heathen" as better conformed to English usage. Correc- 
tions and additions are in brackets. Kuenen says that the second 
" rule is often violated by an oversight, and the Gentiles are made to 
speak of Yah we (Gen. xxvi. 28, 29 ; 1 Sam. xxix. 6 ; 1 Kin. v. 21, B. 
V., ver. 7)." This is corrected in the text. There is no "oversight" 
in the passages referred to, which simply suggest the proper limitation 
of the rule. Abimelech says "Jehovah'' because he means the God of 
Isaac ; Achish does the same because he makes appeal to the God of 
David, and Hiram because he refers to the God of whom Solomon had 
spoken in the verses immediately preceding as " Jehovah my God." 

2 See my Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, pp. 91-99. 



THE DIVINE NAMES 543 

marked sections of the Pentateuch, viz., Gen. ii. 4-iv.; 
xii.-xxvi. ; Ex. iii.-Deut. xxxiv. The explanation of this 
singular fact lies upon the surface. These sections 
record three successive stages in the self-revelation of 
the Most High to our first parents, to the patriarchs, to 
Moses and the children of Israel. They relate to the 
three great epochs in the development of God's earthly 
kingdom and the unfolding of his scheme of grace. 
There is first God's manifestation of himself to man in 
his primitive estate, and again after his guilty trespass in 
the primal promise of mercy, the acceptance of Abel's 
worship, the ineffectual remonstrance with Cain, who is 
finally banished from the divine presence, while God is 
acceptably invoked in the family of Seth. 

The next important step in the establishment of God's 
kingdom among men was his special manifestation of 
himself to Abraham, who was called from the mass of 
mankind to be the head of a chosen race, among whom 
true religion might be nurtured with a view to the ulti- 
mate blessing of all the nations of the earth. 

The third step in this divine plan of salvation was 
God's manifestation of himself to Moses, and through 
him to Israel, in delivering them from the bondage of 
Egypt and organizing them as the people of God. 

As Jehovah is the name appropriate to the Most High 
as the God of revelation and of redemption, there is a 
manifest propriety in its employment, as in actual fact it 
is predominantly employed, at just these signal epochs 
in which this aspect of his being is most conspicuously 
exhibited. It requires no assumption of a Jehovist writer 
to account for what thus follows from the nature of the 
case. That Jehovah should fall more into the back- 
ground in the intervals between these signal periods of 
self-revelation is also what might be expected. Yet it 
does not disappear entirely. It recurs with sufficient 



544 conclusion 

frequency to remind the reader of the continuity of that 
divine purpose of salvation, which is never abandoned, 
and is never entirely merged in mere general providen- 
tial control. 

As Elohim is the term by which God is denoted in his 
relation to the world at large, in distinction from his 
special relation to his own people, it is a matter of 
course that the creation of heaven and earth and all that 
they contain is ascribed to him as Elohim (Gen. i.). It 
is equally natural that when the world, which he had 
made very good, had become so corrupt as to frustrate 
the end of its creation, the Creator, Elohim, should in- 
terfere to arrest this degeneracy by a flood, and should 
at the same time devise measures to preserve the vari- 
ous species of living things in order to replenish the 
earth once more (vi. 11-ix. 17). Here, too, was a case for 
Jehovah's interference likewise to preserve his plan of 
grace and salvation from utter failure by sweeping away 
the corrupt mass and preserving pious Noah and his 
family from its contamination and its ruin. Hence, 
while in the description of this catastrophe Elohim pre- 
dominates, Jehovah is introduced whenever this special 
feature is particularly alluded to (vi. 1-8 ; vii. 1-5, 16b ; 
viii. 20-22). And Jehovah interferes again to avert the 
new peril involved in the impious attempt at Babel (xi. 
1-9) ; and he is not unobservant of the ambitious designs 
of the kingdom erected there (x. 8-10). 

The constancy with which the name Jehovah appears 
in the life of Abraham, from ch. xii. onward, is first inter- 
rupted in ch. xvii., where Jehovah appears in the open- 
ing verse as God Almighty, and throughout the chap- 
ter is spoken of as Elohim, to indicate that the God 
of Abraham is likewise the God of the universe. The 
reason is apparent. God had promised to make of him 
a great nation, to give his posterity the land of Canaan, 



THE DIVINE NAMES 545 

and through them to bless all the nations of the earth. 
These promises had been repeated from time to time. 
Four and twenty years had now passed of anxious wait- 
ing. But the child, upon whom the fulfilment of all 
these promises was conditioned, was not yet born. 
Meanwhile in Sarah's advancing age, and his own, all 
natural hope of offspring had vanished. Hence this appeal 
to the divine omnipotence, which was able to accomplish 
what was above and beyond the powers of nature, in or- 
der to confirm the patriarch's faith in the promise, now 
renewed and made more specific than ever before, that 
Isaac should be born the next year. There is no need 
of an Elohist writer to account for the unvarying repeti- 
tion of Elohim in this chapter, nor for its recurrence in 
xxi. 2, 4, 6, where ch. xvii. is plainly referred to. 

The next occurrence of Elohim is in xix. 29, and the 
reason is again apparent. Lot is now finally severed 
from all further connection with Abraham, and God is 
henceforth Elohim to him as to all aliens. Elohim is 
also used in dealing with Abimelech (ch. xx. ; xxi. 22, 23), 
though it is still Jehovah who interferes for the protec- 
tion of Sarah in Gerar (xx. 18), as he had previously done 
in Egypt (xii. 17), and Abraham continues to call on the 
name of Jehovah (xxi. 33), as in xii. 8. So when Hagar 
and Ishmael are finally sent away from Abraham (xxi. 
9-21), and Hagar is no longer counted a member of his 
household, as she was in xvi. 7-14, God is Elohim also to 
the children of Heth (xxiii. 6). Elohim the Creator might 
rightfully demand that the child which he had given 
should be sacrificed to him (xxii. 1-10) ; but Jehovah 
stayed the patriarch's hand (vs. 11 sqq.) ; the spiritual 
surrender was all that he required. Every instance in 
which Elohim is used in the life of Abraham thus explains 
itself ; and there is no need of having recourse to an Elo- 
hist writer to account for its appearance. 
35 



546 CONCLUSION 

The God of Abraham was also the God of Isaac. 
Hence the constant recurrence of Jehovah in xxv. 19- 
xxvii., with the single exception of Elohim as a poetic 
parallel in Isaac's blessing (xxvii. 28). For Elohim, in 
xxv. 11, xxviii. 4, see pp. 310, 332. 

The name Jehovah is less prominent in the chapters 
that follow for two reasons chiefly : 1. The manifestations 
of Jehovah and the gradual unfolding of his gracious 
purposes, which marked the early portion of the patri- 
archal period, were sufficient for that stage in the de- 
velopment of the divine plan. It was enough to repeat 
the promises already made to Abraham and Isaac. Kev- 
elations surpassing these were reserved for a later stage, 
when the time arrived to fulfil the promises now made 
and for Jehovah to make himself known to Israel by 
manifestations of his power and grace such as their 
fathers had never witnessed (Ex. vi. 3). 2. The lives of 
Jacob and Joseph, which occupy nearly all the rest of 
Genesis, were spent for the most part away from the 
holy land, amid Gentile surroundings, which made it 
appropriate to use the name Elohim. 

And yet Jehovah recurs often enough to show that his 
special relation to the chosen race is steadfastly main- 
tained. Jehovah reveals himself to Jacob on his flight 
from home (xxviii. 13 sqq.) ; is recognized in the first 
children born to Leah (xxix. 31-35), and in the promise 
of yet another son to Rachel (xxx. 24), to complete the 
patriarch's family; is acknowledged as the source of 
blessing even to Laban for Jacob's sake (xxx. 27, 30) ; and 
at length bids Jacob return to the land of his fathers 
(xxxi. 3). It is Jehovah who punishes the wicked sons 
of Judah (xxxviii. 7, 10) ; and who protects and blesses 
Joseph in servitude (xxxix. 2-5), and in prison (vs. 21, 
23). It is Jehovah for whose salvation Jacob waits to 
the last moment of his life (xlix. 18). The appropriate- 



THE DIVINE NAMES 547 

ness of Elohim throughout these chapters has been al- 
ready shown in the discussion of each passage in which 
it occurs. 

The divisive hypothesis was invented to account for 
the alternation of Elohim and Jehovah. We have seen 
that notwithstanding all the ingenuity expended upon it 
it still fails to accord with the actual occurrence of these 
names. It further appears that it is not needed to ex- 
plain the alternation of these names, the real reason of 
which lies in the significance of these names themselves. 
It remains to be added that it cannot render, and does 
not even pretend to render, a rational account of the em- 
ployment of these names and their remarkable distribu- 
tion as this has now been exhibited. It has nothing to 
suggest but the proclivities of different writers. The 
Elohist is supposed to be governed by the theory that 
the name Jehovah was unknown until the time of Moses ; 
he therefore makes no previous use of it. The Jehovist 
held that it was in use from the earliest ages and employs 
it accordingly. Each is supposed to use that name to 
which he is addicted habitually, and without reference 
to its peculiar signification ; and yet we find these names 
to be discriminatingly used throughout. How is this to 
be accounted for ? How has it come to pass that each 
writer has happened to limit himself to recording just 
those matters, which call for the use of that particular 
divine name which he is in the habit of employing, 
and this, though there is no sort of connection between 
the theories which govern their use of the divine names 
and these particular portions of the primeval or patri- 
archal history? The divisive hypothesis can give no 
reason why the Elohist rather than the Jehovist should 
have given an account of the creation of the world 
and all that it contains ; nor why the Jehovist rather than 
the Elohist should have described the beginnings of God's 



548 CONCLUSION 

earthly kingdom in man's primeval condition and the mercy 
shown him after his fall ; nor why the Elohist never speaks 
of an altar or sacrifice or invocation or any act of patri- 
archal worship ; l nor why Jehovah occurs without inter- 
ruption in the life of Abraham until in ch. xvii. the di- 
vine omnipotence is pledged to fulfil the oft-repeated 
but long-delayed promise ; nor why Elohim regularly oc- 
curs when Gentiles are concerned, unless specific refer- 
ence is made to the God of the patriarchs. All this is 
purely accidental on the divisive hypothesis. But such 
evident adaptation is not the work of chance. It can 
only result from the intelligent employment of the di- 
vine names in accordance with their proper meaning and 
recognized usage. 

DICTION, STYLE, AND CONCEPTION 

Kuenen 2 tells us that " the history of critical investi- 
gation has shown that far too much weight has often 
been laid on agreement in the use of the divine names. 
It is well, therefore, to utter a warning against laying an 
exaggerated stress on this one phenomenon." " It is but 
one of the many marks which must be duly observed in 
tracing the origin and the mutual relations of the pas- 
sages." It is claimed that each of these divine names is 
regularly associated with a characteristic diction, mode 
of conception, and style of expression, which are clearly 

i The suggestion that in the opinion of the Elohist worship was first in- 
troduced by Moses is absurd upon its face, see pp. 163 seq., 384 ; and it is 
without the slightest warrant in any Scriptural statement. Besides it 
leaves the difficulty unsolved. There is no natural connection between 
his idea that God was exclusively called Elohim in the patriarchal age, 
and the notion that he was never worshipped then. How did he happen 
to be possessed of just such a notion as kept him from an inappropriate 
use of Elohim ? 

a Hexateuch, p. 



DICTION, STYLE, AND CONCEPTION 549 

indicative of distinct writers. But upon examination this 
proves to be altogether fallacious. 

There is evidently no significance in the fact that a 
given series of sections or paragraphs contains words and 
phrases that are not found in another series in which 
there was no occasion to employ them. And that the 
same thought is differently expressed in two different 
passages does not necessarily prove that they are by dis- 
tinct writers. Long lists of words of this description 
are paraded by critics as evidence of diversity of author- 
ship, which are of no force whatever; and which could 
be paralleled with perfect ease from the acknowledged 
works of well-known authors in ancient or in modern 
times. Critics are never at a loss for arguments from 
diction to sustain even the most extravagant positions. 
The plausible use that can be made of it where it is 
plainly of no account, and the frequency with which it is 
disregarded by critics themselves when it does not serve 
their purpose, shows how precarious this style of argu- 
ment is, and how important it is to guard against being 
misled by deceptive appearances. 

The earlier forms of the divisive hypothesis were 
wrecked by their inability to establish a diversity of dic- 
tion between the Elohist and the Jehovist. All sorts of 
subterfuges were resorted to in the endeavor to account 
for the fact that in a multitude of passages they were 
quite indistinguishable. At length Hupfeld came to the 
rescue with his suggestion, since accepted as a veritable 
discovery, that there were two Elohists, P and E, who 
were alike in their use of Elohim, but differed greatly in 
every other respect. P is supposed to contrast strongly 
with J (the Jehovist), while it is exceeding difficult, if not 
impossible, to discriminate between E and J, except in 
their use of the divine names. 

There are some things about this discovery of Hup- 



550 CONCLUSION 

feld which have a very suspicious look. In the first 
place, so large a share of the Elohist passages is sur- 
rendered to E as to destroy all semblance of continuity 
in P. It was claimed by the advocates of the supple- 
ment hypothesis that the Elohist, though he had little 
to say of Abraham and Isaac, nevertheless gave a full 
account of the patriarch Jacob, the real founder of the 
nation of Israel. But with the exception of two events 
in the life of Abraham, recorded in chs. xvii. and xxiii., 
nothing is assigned to P in the entire patriarchal period 
but a few disconnected sentences, scattered here and 
there, which are detached from the narrative to which 
they belong. 

Another suspicious circumstance is that P breaks off 
so near the point where E begins. While sundry at- 
tempts have been made to discover fragments of E in 
earlier chapters of Genesis, it is generally confessed that 
ch. xx. is the first passage that can be confidently attrib- 
uted to this document. All Elohist passages prior to ch. 
xx. are said to belong to P ; ch. xx. and all subsequent 
Elohist passages belong to E, with the sole exception of 
ch. xxiii. and a few meagre snatches found elsewhere. 
This certainly looks like rending asunder what belongs 
together. And the natural conclusion would seem to be 
that the difference of diction and style between the Elo- 
hist and the Jehovist, supposed to be made out from a 
comparison of the early chapters of Genesis, is nullified 
by the later chapters in which no such difference is per- 
ceptible. The critics have hastily drawn an inference 
from incomplete data, which a wider induction shows to 
be unfounded (p. 251). 

Moreover, the alleged diversity of diction and style 
between P and the other so-called documents is ade- 
quately explained by the character of the critical parti- 
tion without having recourse to the assumption of dis- 



DICTION, STYLE, AND CONCEPTION 551 

tinct writers. The quantity and the quality of what is 
severally attributed to the different documents solve the 
whole mystery. As a necessary sequence from the scanty 
portion allotted to P compared with the amount assigned 
to J and E, and especially the peculiar character of the 
matter given to P in distinction from the others, P has 
the fewest words, and a different class of words, and a 
style adapted to the nature of its contents. The entire 
body of ordinary narrative is shared between J and E, 
while P has only extraordinary events like the creation 
and deluge, and certain incidents which do not enter into 
the texture of the history, but constitute rather the frame- 
work within which it is adjusted, such as genealogies, 
dates, births, deaths, and migrations. This being the 
case, the peculiarities of diction and style follow as a 
matter of course. The words and phrases and mode of 
expression appropriate to one have no natural connection 
with the other. When the matter is similar, as in J and 
E, the diction and style are alike. When the matter is 
different, as in P compared with JE, the diction and 
style are altered. This is just what is to be expected 
under the circumstances, and requires no diversity of 
writers to explain it, unless it be seriously contended 
that a historian cannot describe great catastrophes, nor 
incorporate in his work genealogies, dates, births, deaths, 
migrations, and legal enactments. 

That the diversity of diction and style observable in 
P, as compared with JE, is due to the difference in 
matter, both in amount and in character, and not to a 
diversity of writers, further appears from an inspection 
of the criteria by which they are professedly discrimi- 
nated. These are specified in detail in the former part 
of this volume under the head of Marks of P, J, and E. 
The words and phrases represented to be characteristic 
of J and E belong to the common stock of the language, 



552 CONCLUSION 

such as any writer or speaker might employ upon occa- 
sion, and which are not found in P for the simple reason 
that no passage is assigned to P that calls for their em- 
ployment. On the other hand, technical legal phrases and 
such special terms as are suitable for the particular mat- 
ters attributed to P form the main stock of that docu- 
ment. The formality, verboseness, and repetition imputed 
to P, as contrasted with the easy and flowing style of J 
and E, find their explanation in the precision due to legal 
transactions (pp. 293 seq.), the emphasis laid upon matters 
of intrinsic importance (pp. 222, 230), or which the writer 
would impress upon the mind of his readers (pp. 18, 101, 
209), or the inevitable sameness of genealogies (p. 50), 
compared with the varied scenes, the changing incidents 
and the portraiture of life and character belonging to his- 
torical descriptions (pp. 240 seq.). And yet like repeti- 
tions, detailed enumerations, stereotyped formulae, and 
genealogical tables are found upon occasion in J and E 
(pp. 81, 141, 231, 292 ; ch. x. 8-19, 21, 24-30, and xxii. 
20-24 J ; xxv. 1-4 E). 

It is further to be observed that when for any reason 
P is allowed a share in ordinary narrative, it becomes as 
difficult to discriminate between P and J as it is else- 
where between J and E ; and the separation has to be 
made on other grounds than diction and style. A nota- 
ble instance is afforded in ch. xxxiv. (pp. 388 sqq.), where 
the wide divergence of the critics shows how baseless the 
partition is. 

The total absence of any reason for regarding P as a 
separate document is yet more strikingly apparent from 
the shifting character of the criteria upon which its rec- 
ognition is made to rest. Each separate portion of the 
document stands in this respect by itself, and out of re- 
lation to the rest. The marks insisted upon in any one 
portion are, with few exceptions, absent from every other 



AND CONCEPTION 553 

throughout the Book of Genesis, so that different parts of 
the document are claimed for it on wholly dissimilar 
grounds. The narratives of the creation and of the flood 
have much in common, since what was made in the former 
perished in the latter, after which the earth was again re- 
peopled as at the beginning. But only two words or 
phrases noted as characteristic of P in ch. i. recur again in 
Genesis after ch. ix. viz., ^dt male, in connection with 
circumcision (chs. xvii., xxxiv.), and HlTi nns be fruitful 
and multiply in the promises made to Abraham and his 
descendants (pp. 4, 5). After the covenant with Abra- 
ham (ch. xvii.), which recalls that with Noah (ch. ix.), al- 
most every mark of P in the preceding part of Genesis 
disappears entirely (pp. 96 sqq., 141 seq.). Scarcely a 
word or phrase that is reckoned characteristic of P in ch. 
xvii. or xxiii. is found in later chapters of Genesis, except 
where the transaction of the latter is explicitly referred 
to, or the promises of the former are repeated (pp. 231 
sqq., 296 seq.). The migrations of the patriarchs (xii. 5 ; 
xxxi. 18 ; xxxvi. 6 ; xlvi. 6) are evidently recorded hj the 
same hand ; but these are only arbitrarily referred to P 
in spite of their context (pp. 177 seq., 188 seq.). So with 
other snatches, by which the attempt is made to preserve 
the continuity of P and cover references made elsewhere 
in this document (pp. 175 seq., 180, 187 seq., 211 seq.). 

J and E are confessedly indistinguishable in diction 
and style (pp. 252 seq., 271 sqq., 276, etc.) apart from 
the use of Jehovah by the former and Elohim by the 
latter. But it has already been shown that the divine 
names are regulated by their appropriateness in the con- 
nection, not by the mere habit of different writers. The 
only remaining ground for assuming that these were dis- 
tinct documents is alleged contrarieties and contradictions 
and so-called doublets ; and these have been proved to 
be imaginary in every individual instance. 



554 CONCLUSION" 

Attempts have been made, but without success, to dis- 
cover a diversity of conception between the documents. 
It has been affirmed that the anthropomorphisms of J 
imply a less exalted notion of the Supreme Being than 
that of P (pp. 31 sqq., 63, 145, 225) ; that according to 
P sacrificial worship was first introduced by Moses while 
J speaks of offerings made by Cain and Abel (pp. 116 
seq., 163 seq.) ; that in J, but not in P, the blessing 
through Abraham was to extend to all the nations of the 
earth (pp. 163, 244) ; that it is peculiar to E to record 
revelations in dreams (pp. 260 seq.) and the ministry of 
angels (pp. 271, 340). The falsity of these positions has 
been shown in the passages referred to. 

It should be remembered in this discussion that the 
so-called Pentateuchal documents do not exist in their 
separate state. We are not comparing fixed and defi- 
nite entities, which have come down to us in their proper 
form. They have been fashioned and their limits deter- 
mined by the critics on the basis of certain alleged cri- 
teria. Their correspondence with these criteria simply 
results from the mode of their formation, and is no evi- 
dence of their reality. The argument moves in a circle 
and returns upon itself. The documents depend upon 
the criteria, and the criteria upon the documents ; and 
there is no independent proof of either. 

CONTINUITY OF GENESIS 

The positive and irrefragable argument for the unity 
of Genesis is that it is a continuous and connected 
whole, written with a definite design and upon an evi- 
dent plan which is steadfastly maintained throughout. 
The critics attribute this to the skill of the redactor- 
But they impose upon him an impossible task. An 
author may draw his materials from a great variety of 



CONTINUITY OF GENESIS 555 

sources, form his own conception of his subject, elabo- 
rate it after a method of his own, and thus give unity to 
his production. But a compiler, who simply weaves to- 
gether extracts selected from separate authorities, has 
not the freedom of the author, and cannot do the same 
kind of work. He is trammelled by the nature of his 
undertaking. He cannot reconstruct his materials and 
adapt them to one another ; he must accept them as he 
finds them. And now, if these authorities, as is alleged, 
were prepared with different aims and from diverse 
points of view, if they are unlike in style and diction and 
discordant in their statements, he never could produce 
the semblance of unity in his work. The difference of 
texture would show itself at the points of junction. 
There would inevitably be chasms, and abrupt transitions, 
and a want of harmony between the parts. Such a work 
as Genesis could not have been produced in this way. 

It is besides very plain from a comparison of the 
documents, as the critics profess to reproduce them, that 
they must have been parallel throughout. The same 
events are treated in each, and in the same order, and in 
a manner so nearly resembling one another that they 
cannot have been altogether independent in their origin, 
as the critics themselves admit (pp. 158 sqq.). 1 

The text, as we possess it, is harmonious. It is only 

1 Dillmann says (Genesis, Vorbemerkungen, p. xiii.) : "In the pri- 
meval history there is both in plan and material an unmistakable rela- 
tionship between J and P (creation, primitive state, Noah's genealogical 
tree, the flood, table of nations) ; also in the Abraham section and on- 
ward they have some narratives in common (separation from Lot, de- 
struction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the history of Dinah, also xlvii. 1- 
11 ; xlvii. 29 sqq., cf. xlix. 29 sqq). But elsewhere in the patriarchal 
history, especially that of Jacob and Joseph, J is most closely related 
to E, so much so that from ch. xxvii. onward the most of J's narratives 
have their complete parallels in E, and we must necessarily assume 
the dependence of one upon the other." 



556 conclusion 

when it is resolved into the so-called documents that in- 
consistencies appear. This makes it evident that these 
documents are not the originals and Genesis a compila- 
tion from them ; but Genesis is the original, and the 
documents have been deduced from it. The combina- 
tion of two or three mutually inconsistent accounts will 
not produce a harmonious and symmetrical narrative. 
But severing paragraphs and clauses from their proper 
connection, and interpreting them at variance with it 
will produce the appearance of discord and disagree- 
ment. 1 

CHASMS IN THE DOCUMENTS 

The real existence of documents in Genesis is still 
further discredited by the numerous and serious gaps 
that occur in each of them. P records that in the crea- 
tion all was made very good, and that at the flood the 
earth was so corrupt that God resolved to destroy it, but 
says nothing to account for the dreadful change; the 
missing explanation is only to be found in J (pp. 35, 78). 
There is a chasm in P, in the life of Abraham, between 
chs. xi. and xvii., which the critics vainly seek to bridge by 
scattered clauses torn from the connection to which they 
evidently belong (pp. 155, 171, 180, 189 seq., 209 sqq., 
217 sqq.), as they do with regard to J in the flood (pp. 
75 sqq.). P's life of Isaac consists of the merest scraps. 
Jacob goes to Paddan-aram to get a wife, but his entire 
abode there is a blank (pp. 316 seq., 362 sqq.) that can 
only be filled up from J and E. Joseph is named by P 
among the children of Jacob born in Paddan-aram (xxxv. 
24), but not another word is said about him 2 until we 
are suddenly informed (xli. 46) that he was thirty years 

1 See my Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, pp. 119 sqq. 

2 The critics are divided about an isolated clause in xxxvii. 2, p.446. 



CHASMS IN THE DOCUMENTS 557 

old when he stood before Pharaoh. How he came to be 
in Egypt, and what led to his elevation there can only 
be learned from other documents. The next thing that 
we are told is that Jacob was removing to Egypt with 
his entire family (xlvi. 6, 7) ; here again we must look 
elsewhere for the circumstances by which this was 
brought about. 

J is supposed to have traced the line of descent from 
Adam to Noah, and from Noah to Abraham, but only 
disconnected fragments remain (pp. 47, 135 seq.) ; also 
to have given an account of the descendants of Noah's 
sons, which is likewise in a fragmentary state (pp. 134 
seq.). His account of Abraham begins abruptly (pp. 169 
seq., 175), and is without any fitting termination ; in 
fact he does not record the death of any of the patriarchs 
(p. 310). E's account of Abraham consists merely of a 
few disconnected incidents (pp. 160 seq.). J and E are 
inseparably blended in ch. xxvii. The narrative is in- 
capable of division, and yet is indispensable in each 
document, so that it cannot be given to one without 
creating a chasm in the other (pp. 328 sqq.). The par- 
tition of chs. xxix. and xxx. between J and E leaves both 
very incomplete (pp. 344 sqq., 352). And in the life of 
Joseph every passage assigned to one of these documents 
creates a break in the other. 

There are also numerous cross-references from one 
document to the contents of another, showing that they 
have been improperly sundered (pp. 33 sqq., 72 seq., 
175, 322, 331, etc.). In other cases these are only 
evaded by splintering closely connected passages into 
bits because of the references made to them from differ- 
ent documents (pp. 169, 309, 405 sqq.). 

In all these instances of a lack of continuity in the 
documents and references in one to the contents of an- 
other, the critics assume that R is at fault. The missing 



558 CONCLUSION 

matter must have been in the document originally, but 
was omitted by R because he had given an equivalent 
account from another source, which he thought it un- 
necessary to duplicate. This assumption, it is to be ob- 
served, is simply an inference from the hypothesis which 
it is adduced to support. There is nothing to confirm it 
apart from the prior assumption of the truth of that 
hypothesis, which is the very thing to be proved. The 
hypothesis requires it ; that is all. 

These numerous breaks in the documents are created 
by the critical partition. Just what is needed to fill the 
gap is in the text as it now stands. But the critics insist 
that the lack must be supplied, not by these passages 
which are here before us, and which precisely answer 
every requirement, but by some hypothetical passage 
which may once have existed, but of which there is no 
proof whatever except that the hypothesis cannot be 
maintained without it. These auxiliary assumptions 
have to be made so frequently that nothing but the clear- 
est independent proof of the truth of the hypothesis 
could enable it to carry them. And this is utterly want- 
ing. As it is, these unfilled chasms are just so many 
proofs that the hypothesis is untenable. 

This conclusion is yet more firmly riveted by the in- 
consistent conduct which the divisive critics are obliged 
to impute to the redactor. While omitting in turn mat- 
ters of the greatest consequence from each of the docu- 
ments, he is supposed at other times scrupulously to re- 
tain even the minutest portion of the sources which he is 
using, though it leads to superfluous repetitions in trivial 
things. This is not to be evaded by assuming different 
redactors, who adopt different methods in their compila- 
tion. The redactor who combined J and E, at the very 
time that he was sacrificing large and important portions 
of each document alternately, is supposed to have in- 






CHASMS IN" THE DOCUMENTS 559 

corporated clauses or sentences from the omitted sections 
in the text of the other document, which are betrayed as 
such by the redundancy thus occasioned. 1 And the re- 
dactor who combined P with JE, and at times was par- 
ticular to preserve all that he found in P, even when it 
added nothing to what had already been extracted from 
J 2 (pp. 83 sqq., 175, 265), at other times did not hesitate 
to throw away the bulk of his narrative and reduce the 
document to incoherent fragments. And each of these 
redactors is supposed in a great number of cases to have 
carefully preserved the contents of his sources, notwith- 
standing their discrepancies and contradictions, while at 
other times, without any reason to account for this dif- 
ference of treatment, he freely modified them in order to 
bring them into harmony with each other. 3 The redac- 
tor is made the scapegoat of the hypothesis. Every 
thing that does not square with the hypothesis is attrib- 
uted to him. And this lays upon him incompatible de- 
mands, and imputes to him a degree of inconsistency in- 
supposable in any rational man. 

1 Kuenen (Hexateuch, p. 164, note 28) says: " The scrupulous con- 
servatism of the redaction is proclaimed loudly enough by the presence 
of so many doublets. . . . The little additions to E and J in Gen. 
xl. sqq. are evidently intended to smooth down the inequalities that 
must necessarily arise when fragments now of one, now of the other 
narrative, are successively taken up." 

2 Kuenen (Ibid., p. 320): "R scrupulously inserts even the minor 
fragments of P in the places that seem best to fit them when the more 
detailed notices of the older documents might have seemed to a less 
zealous disciple to have rendered them superfluous." 

3 Hence Kuenen (Hexateuch, p. 255) speaks of "the mingled rever- 
ence and freedom, so strange sometimes to our ideas, with which he 
treats his documents." 



560 CONCLUSION 



WHEN AND WHEEE PEODUCED 

In undertaking to determine the date and origin of 
the supposititious Pentateuchal documents, the critics 
begin by denying the truth of the patriarchal history. 
Kuenen tells us : 1 " The narratives of Genesis are 
founded upon a theory of the origin of nations, which 
the historical science of the present day rejects without 
the slightest hesitation. The Israelites looked upon na- 
tions or tribes as families or large households. The 
further they carried their thoughts back, the smaller to 
their ideas became the family, until at last they came 
upon the father of the tribe or of the whole nation, to 
whom very naturally they ascribed the same qualities as 
they had observed in the descendants. This theory of 
the origin of nations is not the true one. Families be- 
come tribes, and eventually nations, not only, nor even 
chiefly, by multiplying, but also, nay, principally, by 
combining with the inhabitants of some district, by the 
subjection of the weaker to the stronger, by the gradual 
blending together of sometimes very heterogeneous ele- 
ments." So, too, Dillmann : 2 "It is well understood 
nowadays that all these narratives respecting the patri- 
archs belong not to strict history but to saga. That the 
proper ancestor of no one people on earth can be histor- 
ically pointed out ; that nations are not formed after the 
manner of a family, but grow together from all sorts of 
materials ; that the division into twelve tribes of all the 
Hebraic peoples rests not on natural generation and 
blood relationship, but that art and design, geographical 
and political or even religions reasons, were controlling 

1 Religion of Israel, vol. i., p. 110. The paragraph cited above is 
slightly abridged. 

2 Genesis, p. 215. 



WHEN" AND WHERE PRODUCED 561 

in it ; that the personifications of peoples, tribes, regions, 
and periods, which are universally recognized in the rep- 
resentations of Genesis as far as ch. xi., do not cease at 
once with ch. xii., but continue further, and that not 
merely in the genealogies of peoples which still follow, 
is to be unconditionally admitted." 

To all this Delitzsch, 1 while admitting what is said 
of the growth of other nations, very properly replies : 
" The people destined to be the bearer and mediator of 
revealed religion is, as is emphasized throughout the 
Scriptures of the Old Testament (e.g., Deut. xxxii. 8), no 
mere formation of nature ; and we can conceive that 
there was something unique in the very origination of 
this people, provided of course that we acknowledge a 
realm of grace above that of nature, and consequently a 
realm of the supernatural control of God above that of 
natural law. Besides, the migration of the Terahids is 
in itself more than simply a fact of family history. And 
a shepherd prince like Abraham, who could put in the 
field hundreds of servants, that must be regarded as in- 
corporated with his family, is already developing into a 
tribe ; at least several prominent tribes among the South 
African Bantu people have arisen in this way from a 
chief and his adherents. And the family of Jacob, which 
emigrated to Egypt, and only numbered seventy souls 
as blood-related kinsmen, grew into a nation, not merely 
of itself, but by the reception of all sorts of foreign ma- 
terials." 

To one who believes that God designed to form a peo- 
ple for himself and for his own gracious purposes, there 
is little difficulty in believing that he selected Abraham 
to be the head of a chosen race, among whom true relig- 
ion should be preserved and perpetuated until the time 
should arrive for its diffusion among all the nations of 

1 Genesis, p. 248. 
36 



562 CONCLUSION 

the earth. Such an one can easily credit the fact that 
the people of Israel was brought into being in a manner 
different from other nations, and better suited to fit them 
for the peculiar task that was to be committed to them. 
Accordingly he will see no reason to discredit the histor- 
ical character of the lives of the patriarchs as recorded 
in Genesis. The fact that the filiation of nations is ex- 
hibited in ch. x. under the form of a genealogy does not 
justify the suspicion that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 
whose histories are related in detail, are the names not 
of individual men, but of tribal communities. That they 
were the heads of considerable clans appears from the 
narrative itself, p. 466. The immediate object to which 
attention is directed at present, however, is not the truth 
of the Scriptural declarations on this subject, but the 
position of the divisive critics and the process by which 
they undertake to determine the time arid place in which 
the Pentateuchal documents were produced. 

Apart from the wild conceits, which have actually 
found advocates, that the patriarchs are nature myths, 
or that they represent tribal deities, the common concep- 
tion of those by whom the divisive hypothesis has been 
shaped is that they are personifications of the people of 
Israel in the earliest periods of their history, or of sepa- 
rate clans or tribes supposed to have been combined in 
the formation of that people. Thus Kuenen 1 says : " Ja- 
cob-Israel, who appears in Genesis as the ancestor of 
the whole people, was originally the personification of 
the tribes which ranged themselves round Ephraim. In 
the stories about him in Gen. xxvii.-L, Joseph, the father 
of Manasseh and Ephraim, is the chief personage." 
" The several sagas were probably of local origin. For 
example, Isaac belongs originally to Beersheba, and 
Jacob to Bethel." " Hebron was Abraham's territorial 
1 Hexateuch, pp. 229, 227, 231, 235. 



WHEN AND WHERE PRODUCED 563 

cradle." Both lie and WeHhausen insist that " Isaac, not 
Abraham, was the protagonist." Abraham was the latest 
creation of the saga, and the resemblance of his life to 
that of Isaac is accounted for by "the transference to 
Abraham of sagas concerning Isaac." Dillmann l holds 
that " if Jacob can be understood as the personal con- 
centration of the twelve-tribe people of Israel, so also 
Isaac and Abraham as designations of historical ante- 
cedent stages of the twelve-tribe people or its related cir- 
cle. . . . According to Genesis they are at the least 
concentrations of certain fragments of the Hebrew peo- 
ple out of which Israel was gradually formed." " In the 
remainder of the Abrahamic immigration after the sunder- 
ing of the Lot-people, the Ishmaelites, and the Keturah- 
ites, later generations recognized that portion of the He- 
brews which preserved the Abrahamic character in the 
greatest purity and were their proper ancestors. . . . 
Jacob-Israel is along with Abraham the proper father of 
the people of Israel, the representative of a new Hebrew 
immigration from Mesopotamia, out of which, together 
with the Isaac-people, Israel was formed. Quite a differ- 
ent part of Canaan is the scene of his actions, viz., the 
middle (Bethel, Shechem) and eastern portion of the land 
(Mahanaim, Peniel, Succoth)." 

According to Stade 2 there is no basis of truth what- 
ever in the narratives of Genesis. He says : " We main- 
tain that the people of Israel possess no sort of certain 
and intelligible historical recollections about the events 
prior to the time of their settlement in the land west of 
the Jordan. All that subsequently existed of recollec- 
tions about that earlier time is concentrated in the two 
names, Moses and Sinai. But what is narrated of these 
names is simply concluded back from the relations of the 

1 Genesis, pp. 215, 216, 311. 

2 Geschichte des Volkes Israel, pp. 55, 128, 129, 130. 



564 CONCLUSION 

present ; it is nothing but saga which takes its bearings 
from and is reconstructed by these latter." " A pre- 
Egyptian abode of Israelitish families in the land west of 
the Jordan is not to be spoken of. . . . This concep- 
tion cannot be honestly held in view of discovered facts," 
as he conceives them. " The people of Israel never 
resided in Egypt. ... If any Hebraic clan ever 
resided there, no one knows its name. . . . The in- 
vestigations respecting the Pharaohs, under whom Israel 
migrated into and out of Egypt, are useless trifling with 
numbers and names." "We have not the least knowl- 
edge of the pre-Mosaic worship of God in Israel ; not a 
single tradition concerning it is in existence." 

Kuenen l is not so utterly destructive. He finds the 
following basis of fact in Genesis : " There occurred a 
Semitic migration, which issued from Arrapachitis (Ar- 
pachshad, Ur Casdim), and moved on in a southwesterly 
direction. The countries to the south and east of 
Canaan were gradually occupied by these intruders, the 
former inhabitants being either expelled or subjugated ; 
Ammon, Moab, Ishmael, and Edom became the ruling 
nations in those districts. In Canaan the situation was 
different. The tribes which — at first closely connected 
with the Edomites, but afterward separated from them — 
had turned their steps toward Canaan, did not find them- 
selves strong enough either to drive out, or to exact 
tribute from, the original inhabitants ; they continued 
their wandering life among them, and lived upon the 
whole at peace with them. But a real settlement was 
still their aim. "When, therefore, they had become more 
numerous and powerful through the arrival of a number 
of kindred settlers from Mesopotamia — represented in 
tradition by the army with which Jacob returns to 
Canaan — they resumed their march in the same south- 

1 Religion of Israel, vol. i., pp. 114, 115. 



WHEN AND WHERE PRODUCED 

westerly direction, until at length they took possession 
of fixed habitations in the land of Goshen on the borders 
of Egypt. It is not impossible that a single tribe had 
preceded them thither and that they undertook the jour- 
ney to Goshen at the solicitation of that forerunner ; 
this would then be the kernel of the narratives relating 
to Joseph and his exertions in favor of his brethren." l 

Dillmann 2 contends for a still larger basis of truth. 
In fact he goes so far that it is surprising that he does 
not go farther, and admit with Delitzsch that the history 
is at least substantially reliable throughout. He says: 
"Is there any reason to refuse to these patriarchal sagas 
of Israel all historical content, so much so that it has 
even been doubted or denied that their ancestors ever 
were in Canaan, and they have even been declared to be 

1 This mode of manufacturing history by substituting fanciful con- 
jectures for facts, in which the critics so freely indulge in the patri- 
archal. Mosaic, and even later periods, is well characterized in the fol- 
lowing passage from an unpublished lecture of my distinguished prede- 
cessor, Dr. Addison Alexander : 

"Let us suppose that a future critic of our revolutionary history — 
and if a German so much the better— should insist upon the improba- 
bility that such a revolution could have been occasioned by causes so 
trifling as the Stamp Act or the tax on tea, and should therefore repre- 
sent them as symbolical myths occasioned by the rivalry of England 
and America at a late period in the tea trade with China and by the 
disputes respecting an international copyright. Such a writer would, 
of coarse, find no difficulty in going further and regarding Washington 
as an unnatural and impossible character, yet highly striking and ap- 
propriate as a genuine type of patriotic and republican virtues. It is 
plain that this ingenious child's play could be carried on ad infinitum ; 
and this very facility deprives it of all force as proof that the imagi- 
nary process was a real one, or that the stream of history flows backward 
from its estuary to its source. In spite of all sophistical refinements 
the common sense of mankind will still cleave to the lesson taught by 
all analogy, that primitive history must deal with individualities, and 
that philosophical myths can only be obtained from them by general- 
izing combination." 

2 Genesis, pp. 215, 216. 



566 conclusion 

' tendency ' fictions of the period of the kings ? . . . 
Doubtless the reflection of later persons, times, and rela- 
tions is thrown back on the saga forms of antiquity, and 
the latter become involuntarily types of the former, but 
there must first be a background for that which is more 
recent to mirror itself upon. . . . It is not impossi- 
ble even that obscure reminiscences of actual historical 
persons may have attached themselves to them, though 
naturally no proof of it can be adduced, for extra- 
biblical testimonies are wanting. ... A main con- 
sideration here is that the religion founded by Moses 
cannot be historically explained without the previous 
stage of a purer faith respecting God (at least as com- 
pared with ordinary heathenism), such as according to 
Genesis was possessed by the patriarchs. . . . And 
such a higher religious culture almost necessarily pre- 
supposes personal mediators or bearers. As the forma- 
tion of states only takes place through leading spirits or 
heroes, so too the stadia of the development of religion 
are linked to prominent persons. The patriarchal sagas 
in Genesis represent Abraham as the head of a purer 
faith respecting God in the midst of heathen darkness, 
as a man of a mind eminently disposed toward God and 
faith, who was accustomed to hear and obey the voice 
and instruction of God in all the junctures and events of 
his life, who made advances in the knowledge of the 
being and will of God, and who grounded his family and 
his neighborhood in this higher knowledge. We must 
almost presuppose the existence of one or more such 
men, whether they were called Abraham or something 
else, if it be correct that Moses could link on to the God 
of his fathers. To be sure, if one denies, as many now 
do, the work of Moses likewise, and makes the herds- 
man Amos or Elijah the opponent of Baal the founder 
of the higher God- consciousness of Israel, that linking is 



WHEN AND WHERE PRODUCED 567 

no longer needed. The whole patriarchal saga must dis- 
solve in fog and mist on this way of regarding things/' 

Stade and Kuenen fix the age of the patriarchal saga 
on the basis of their revolutionary conception of the his- 
tory of Israel. Thus Stade l says : " Abraham as the 
father of Isaac and grandfather of Jacob presupposes the 
government of Judah over all Israel, and the complete 
amalgamation of the Edomite clan Caleb with Judah ; 
the Jacob-Joseph saga presupposes the divided king- 
dom." And Kuenen : 2 " The sagas about the patri- 
archs . . . presuppose the unity of the people 
(which only came into existence with and by means of 
the monarchy) as a long-accomplished fact which had 
come to dominate the whole conception of the past com- 
pletely." " The welding process (i.e., of the sagas relat- 
ing to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) cannot have begun till 
the national unity was established ; and it must have 
reached its ultimate completeness when the stories out 
of which Gen. xii. sqq. is worked up and compiled were 
written." The conclusion is hence drawn that the Pen- 
tateuchal documents must be considerably later than the 
time of David, or even of Eehoboam. But it rests upon 
a theory of the history of Israel, which is in the face of 
the clearest Scriptural statements, and has no real basis 
in the few passages which have been wrested to its sup- 
port. 

A more common argument of date is drawn from the 
localities mentioned in the lives of the patriarchs, as 
Bethel, Shechem, Beersheba, Hebron, etc. Later super- 
stition consecrated these places, where divine communi- 
cations were made to the patriarchs, or where they erected 
altars and worshipped God; and idolatrous sanctuaries 
were established there. By a complete inversion of the 
real facts of the case it is alleged that the narratives of reve- 

1 Geschichte, p, 128, 3 Hexateucli, pp. 226, 227, 



568 CONCLUSION 

lations granted to the patriarchs and of worship offered by 
them are not records of real facts, but are stories which 
grew up at these sanctuaries to enhance their credit. 
The authors of these narratives as they appear in Gene- 
sis, it is claimed, intended thereby to give sanction to 
these sanctuaries and express their approval of them. 
The stern condemnation of the worship at these sanctu- 
aries by the prophets Hosea and Amos indicates, it is 
said, a change of mind toward them on the part of the 
best people of that period. This is thought to fix the 
limit, below which narratives commendatory of these 
sanctuaries could not have been written. It is hence 
inferred that J and E, to which the great body of the 
patriarchal narratives are referred, must have been 
written shortly before the time of Hosea and Amos. 

Two questions still remain to divide the critics in re- 
spect to these documents. One is as to their relative 
age ; the other, the part of the country in which they 
were produced. On the one hand it is argued by Well- 
hausen and Kuenen that J must be older than E, since 
it adheres more closely to primitive popular beliefs, as 
shown in its crude anthropomorphic representations of 
the Deity. To which Dillmann replies that like an- 
thropomorphisms are found in the prophets and in other 
writings of the Old Testament along with the most ex- 
alted ideas of God, and he adduces what he considers 
abundant proofs that the author of J was in possession 
of E, and made use of it in preparing his own history. 

Wellhausen and Kuenen maintain that both J and E 
belonged to the northern kingdom of Israel because of 
the prominence given to Joseph, the connection of Jacob 
with Bethel and Shechem, Mahanaim and Penuel, as well 
as Beersheba, which was a sanctuary reverenced in north- 
ern Israel, as appears from Amos v. 5 ; viii. 14. Dillmann 
concedes that E was a North-Israelite, but claims that J 



WHEN AND WHERE PRODUCED 569 

belonged to the kingdom of Judah, inasmuch as he 
speaks of Hebron as the abode of Abraham (xiii. 18 ; 
xviii. 1) and of Jacob (xxxvii. 14), and gives prominence 
to Judah in the history of Joseph (xxxvii. 26 sqq. ; xliii. 
3 sqq. ; xliv. 16 sqq. ; xlvi. 28), as well as in ch. xxxviii. 
But J also links Abraham with Bethel and Shechem (xii. 
6, 8 ; xiii. 3, 4), and dwells as largely as E upon the life 
and dignity of Joseph ; and his account of Judah in chs. 
xxxvii., xxxviii. is not of the most creditable sort. The 
divergence of the critics as well as the incompatibility of 
the facts of the narratives with either theory show that 
these narratives have not been warped by tribal partiali- 
ties or jealousies ; so that the argument for the residence 
of their authors in either one of the kingdoms is abortive. 
And even the attempt of Wellhausen and Kuenen to 
patch up their theory by the assumption of a Judsean 
edition of both J and E only complicates their scheme 
without improving it. 

One more alleged evidence of the date of the docu- 
ments is sought in allusions to late historical events 
which, it is claimed, are found in them, and in the style 
of religious thought and teaching by which they are char- 
acterized. Thus in Noah's prediction (ix. 25-27) of the 
subjugation of Canaan by Shem, it is said that the reign 
of Solomon is presupposed ; in Isaac's blessing (xxvii. 
29, 39 seq.), David's victories over the Edomites, their 
rebellion under Solomon, and revolt against Jehoram the 
son of Jehoshaphat ; in the covenant of Jacob and Laban 
(xxxi. 44 sqq.), the wars of the Aramaeans and Israelites 
for the possession of the trans-Jordanic district ; in the 
promise of kings to spring from Abraham (xvii. 16) and 
Jacob (xxxv. 11), and the blessing upon Judah fxlix. 8- 
10), the reign of David is presupposed ; and in xxxvi. 31 
the establishment of the kingdom in Israel. The falsity 
of the inference deduced from this last passage is shown 



570 CONCLUSION 

at length in the discussion of it in the former part of this 
volume, pp. 425 sqq. The covenant of Jacob and Laban 
is sufficiently explained by the circumstances of the time. 
The fulfilment of the predictions in Genesis does not 
warrant the assumption that they were written after the 
event, except to him who has no belief in the foreknowl- 
edge of God or in the possibility of his making disclos- 
ures of the future. 

The correspondence between the religious ideas which 
find expression in various passages of Genesis and the 
teachings of the prophets is urged in proof that the docu- 
ments J and E must belong to the period of the prophets. 
The true course of religious development in Israel must, 
however, be gathered from a full and careful induction 
of all the facts bearing upon the subject. The critics re- 
verse the proper order of scientific investigation when 
they frame their own theory in advance on naturalistic 
presuppositions, and then attempt to force the facts into 
agreement with it. They determine what degree of en- 
lightenment can upon their theory be attributed to a given 
period, and then systematically exclude from that period 
everything that does not fit into their theory. The 
amount and character of the religious teaching to be 
found in the writings of Moses is the only reliable source 
from which it can be ascertained what his teachings really 
were. The genuineness of his writings must be inde- 
pendently investigated in the first instance ; and then we 
shall be in a position to inquire with some confidence 
into the religion of Moses. But to determine magisteri- 
ally the limits of his teaching, and then to declare that 
the writings attributed to him cannot be genuine, and 
must be referred to an age long posterior to that in which 
he lived, because they transcend these arbitrarily assumed 
limitations, is not a legitimate method of procedure. 



THE END OF THE DISCUSSION 571 



SUMMABY OF THE ARGUMENT 

The argument is now finished. May it not be truly 
said that the demonstration is complete ? The grounds, 
upon which the existence of documents in Genesis is 
rested, have been severally examined and shown to be 
invalid. The alleged repetitions and discrepancies van- 
ish upon examination, being created by the critics them- 
selves, and due either to misinterpretation or the identi- 
fication of distinct events. The divine names in repeated 
instances fail to correspond with the requirements of the 
divisive hypothesis, which is not needed to explain their 
alternation, since this is most satisfactorily accounted for 
from their own proper signification and general biblical 
usage ; moreover, it does not render, and does not even 
pretend to render, a rational account of their employ- 
ment and distribution. The alleged diversity of diction, 
style, and conception is either altogether factitious or is 
due to differences in the subject matter and not to a di- 
versity of writers. The continuity and self- consistency 
of Genesis, contrasted with the fragmentary character 
and mutual inconsistencies of the documents, prove that 
Genesis is the original, of which the so-called documents 
are but severed parts. The role attributed to the re- 
dactor is an impossible one, and proves him to be an un- 
real personage. And the arguments for the late date of 
the documents and for their origin in one or other of the 
divided kingdoms are built upon perversions of the his- 
tory or upon unproved assumptions. What more is 
needed to demonstrate the utter futility of the claim that 
such documents ever existed? 

In the legislative portion of the Pentateuch the ques- 
tion turns no longer upon literary criteria, but upon an 
entirely different principle : Are the institutions and en- 



572 CONCLUSION 

actments of tlie Pentateuch the growth of ages or the 
product of one age and of a single mind ? It is here 
that the battle of the Mosaic authorship must be fought. 
Meanwhile, the investigations thus far conducted justify 
at least a negative conclusion. The so-called anach- 
ronisms of the Book of Genesis have been examined, 
and nothing has been found to militate against its being 
the work of Moses. It is plainly designed to be intro- 
ductory to the law. And if that law was given by Moses, 
as has always been believed, and as the Scriptures abun- 
dantly declare, then Genesis, too, was his work. 



INDEX 



OF THE CRITERIA OF THE DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS 



(The numbers refer to the pages on which they are discussed ; numbers enclosed in 
parentheses to numbers appearing on the page.) 



I. The Divine Names 



El, 404, 497, 525 

El-Elohe-Israel, 382 

Elohim, 6, 41, 51, 64, 89, 151 
sqq., 221, 258, 285, 276, 284, 
295, 310, 331, 340, 350, 369, 
380, 404, 435, 460, 467, 468, 
482, 491, 497, 518, 538 sqq. 

El Shaddai, God Almighty, 221, 
233 (6), 332, 482, 518 



Jehovah, 31, 41, 51, 64, 89, 144, 
151 sqq., 181, 259, 276, 284, 
303, 320, 326, 331, 340, 350, 
369, 380, 434, 455, 460, 525, 
538 sqq. 



Shaddai, Almighty, 525 



II. Style, Conception, and the Relation of Passages 



Age, statements of, P, 98 (2), 

178 (5) 
Altar and sacrifice, J, 116 (1), 

163 (4) 
Angel, J, 215 (1) 
Angel calling out of heaven, E, 

287 (4) 
Anthropomorphisms, J, 31 sqq. 
Anthropopathies, J, 63 (11) 

Back reference, E, 342 (2), 

370 (1) 
Back reference, J, 241 (2), 381 (1) 
Back reference, P, 50 (1), 99 (5), 

231 (1), 269, 297 (13), 311 (7), 

518 (3), 526 (1) 
Beauty of description, J, 240 (1) 



Call and answer, E, 286 (3) 
Call, the divine, J, 181 (1) 
Clean and unclean beasts, J, 

116 (1) 
Conception, 554 

Covenant and its sign, P, 100 (6) 
Covenant, similarity of, P, 333 (4) 
Cross reference, J, 193 (1) 

Dangehous to see God, J, 215 (2) 
Detailed enumeration, P, 102 (10) 
Diction, 548 sqq. 
Diffuseness, P, 101 (7), 269, 402 
Discrepancies, 532 sqq. 
Disjunctive question, J, 245 (31) 

Etymology, J, 145 (3), 216 (4) 



574 



INDEX 



First-born mentioned, P, 313 (4) 
Formality, P, 50 (2), 296 (2) 
Formula, concluding (of gene- 
alogies), P, 141 (2) 
Formulae, constantly recurring, 
P, 101 (7) 

Human feelings attributed to 
God, J, 63 (11) 

Image of God, P, 102 (9) 

Jehovah comes down from 
heaven, J, 145 (2) 

Law woven in, P, 99 (5) 

Measurements, P, 99 (4) 

Night vision, E, 286 (2) 

No sacrifice till Moses, P, 117, 163 

Promise of blessing to all na- 
tions, J, 163 (3), 243 (25) 

Promise of nations, kings, and 
princes, P, 232 (2) 

Reckoning by years of life, P, 

98 (2) 
Redundancy of style, P, 233 (5) 
References expressed or implied 
from one document to an- 
other : 
From E to J, 160 seq., 255 seq., 
263, 322 sqq., 337 seq., 357, 



376, 385, 405, 464 seq. , 468, 
506 (2), 511, 529 

From E to P, 406 

From J to E, 159, 274, 318, 325, 
327, 356, 373, 375, 450, 459 
seq., 473 seq., 478 

From J to P, 15, 33 sqq., 72 
seq., 77, 134, 169 seq., 175, 
209 sqq., 241 (2), 250, 299, 527 

From P to JE, 35 seq., 78, 82, 
158 sqq., 171 seq., 217 sqq., 
246 seq., 249, 298, 309, 316, 
322, 330 seq., 335 seq., 363, 
383, 386 seq., 406 seq., 493, 
513 seq., 527 
Repetitions, 532 sqq. 

Sinfulness of men, inherent, J, 

117 (2) 
Style, 548 sqq. 

Time, exact statements of, P, 

98 (3), 213 (1), 232 (3) 
Tithe, E, 342 (5) 

Unadorned character of the 

narrative, P, 332 (1) 
Unfavorable representation, J, 

216 (3) 

Verbosity, 141 (3) 

Windows of heaven, P, 101 (8) 
Worship, J, 181 (2) 



III. Characteristic Words and Phrases 

(Niphal, Hiphil, Hithpael, and future forms of verbs are arranged under their first 
radical letter. Nouns preceded by the article or an inseparable preposition are 
arranged in accordance with the initial letter of the noun.) 



D^n J, 61 (4) 
TO^tf J, 341 (4) 
W8 J, 241 (4) 



^8 J, 217 (12) 

D^i?3 ni£ P, 161, 170, 204 

TttfcW P, 402 (4) 



INDEX 



575 



n-na p, 233 (7) 

■lTS- J, 484 (6) 

T^n ^S tifl&n E, 484 (6) 

irViT&n ETK (of beasts) J, 117 

(3)" 
SJ8 E, 333 (1) 

boi* J, 485 (12) 

rte« p, 112 (2i) 

b» (for n|«) J, 243 (23) 
nbjj J, 326 (3) 

ins avfba e, 271 (i) 

iab-bs j, 118 (5) 

fiE8 E, 259 (1) 

n:r« E, 253 (12) 

iaba -nsx j, 306 (17) 

btf or b n^tf E, 262 (5) 

nines j, 483 (3) 

^K P, 204 

TBSrbK qD»a P, 310 (5) 

C|SS J, 243 (19) 

pS'^rn j, 4S9 
r.ra nn» j, 40 (6) 

fEHKH P, 320 (5) 
B^SH™ J, 298 
S??n f18 E, 252 (2) 

TW? n? p 177 ( 4 ) 

7p:sb fl8 E, 253 (15) 

•TOK (of a concubine) P, 214 (3) 

b *!«« J, 353 (1) 

3 (distributive) P, 116 (28) 

nmra a a j, 245 (32) 

S"D»a J, 143 (2) 

bb^3 J, 185 (6) 

b**pn p, 4, 5 
if&na p, 403 (9) 



B^aSl (to Egypt) E, 451 (3) 
^3 J, 486 (22) 
WatD? n 3 R, 288 (1) 
IPKDn ma J, 484 (7) 
niD2 P, 313 (4) 

rrpaa j, 250 (i) 

^r\bnb, ^rba j, 242 (14) 
waan niaa j, 299 

IDr'il P, 235 (12) 
n^n|2 J, 118 (6) ; E, 276 (3) 
"12 E, 485 (12) 
&TQ P, 29 (1) 

mm spna J, 326 (4) 

t|"l2rn R, 289 (5) 

a spaa j, isi (5) 

nb^a (of age) E, 355 (2) 

?i| p, no (is) 

OS ... D5 J, 503 (10) 

sin na j, 137, 292 (3) 

flha E, 272 (5) 

pn^T J, 403 (1) 

iab-bs (a) nan j, 306 (i7) 

^"[83 12v J, 529 (2) 

nbs- orwa j, 462 (5) 
mn e, 519 (5) 
rrnyt p, 4 

Cnh^b P, 236 (19) 

D^n'b^mns -jbrtfiin p, 51 (8) 

nan (adv.) E, 2:6 (5) 

a: nan j, iss (4) 

^asri e, 334 (3) 

■>:a o^n'bx nnrin e, 530 (4) 

1*1 (ending) J, 243 (22) 



576 



INDEX 



D^jpT J, 270 (2) 
"DT E, 484 (11) 
"IDT (of God) P, 270 (1) 
nnpDl "Of P, 103 (12) 

ins iinj p, 498 (2) 

H?^n» D??^T P, 109(17) 

pTH E, 506 (3) 

n^n (wild "beast) P, 113 (22) 

rpnn p, 120 (12) 

(W) n*n j» 120 (12) 

n^ton n*n j, 30 (2) 
ni'bn e, 200 (4) 
libn j, 119 (9) 
bnn j, 6i (2) 
nbbn j, 241 (8) 

r^n E, 273 (8) 

rasp ^pn j, 305 (6) 

J-I2jn J, 381 (5) 

rnn j, 245 (30) 
Twn nnn e, 491 (2) 

ptfjn P, 402 (3) 

nara nnb j, 306 (13) 

nit2 (physical) J, 61 (5) 

nrra e, 273 (9) 

1?tJ E, 492 (3) 
DTJ J, 242 (13) 
DTdS E, 334 (2) 

3HJ (euphemism) J, 306 (14) 

3Hirn j, 489 

til; J, 509 (9) 

rnn (n?v>) j, 456 (6) 

Trn E, 287 (6) 



b n^n j, 185 (2) 

rppin e, 276 (7) 

nb; (beget) J, 111 (20), 133 
^ E, 272 (6), 484 (4) 

b n'^ j, 133 

Tbin P, 111 (20), 234 (10) 
J'ttf!] J, 194 (2) 

**n ^» w p, 3ii (6) 

5^0"^ J, 40 (8) 
nffitf }£> R, 289 (3) 
np3>? E, 450 (1) 

n&ntt mini nan ns^ e, 355 

(3) 
W? ^2p P, 498 (7) 

y*an (»j) j, 503 (7) 

W J, 29 (1) 
*fip J, 62 (6) 
D^ J, 119 (10) 

tnin, rn (to Egypt) j, 451 (3) 

STT1 (inf. of TT) E, 498 (3) 
*l?ttrfi8 BT) J, 306 (19) 

bsnto? j, 45o T (i) 

IB? (with suf.) J, 306(11) 
IT?; P, 192 (3) 

nn? J, 485 (14) 

©ns p, 4 

- T ' 

TO (local) E, 287 (5) 
■j3-b? ^ J, 243 (18) 
nm-bl P, 103 (11) 
T^n Wia-bS J, 243 (25) 
nb3 J, 333 (2) 

^nn-bs p, us (7) 

Wb3P, 235(14) 

TT T ' V ' 

Trbs j, ii8(7)' 

T3> *12« i^S'^-bS P, 403 (11) 



INDEX 



577 



bisbSE, 506(2), 530(2) 

rtci«n nins£E-b2 j, isi (4) 

tTjfe E, 484 (8) ' 
HW? 83 ]3 J, 403 (5) 
tW$ |3 P, 105 (14) 

rrna ma j, 107 (16), 2:6 (2) 
^mn ©san nmD2i p, 236 

(20) 

ansa r:h3 j, 451 (2) 

b at J, 118 (4) 

"TIB -l£S: tfb J, 217 (11) 

nnbE, 260(2) 
rw rmh j, 243 (i?) 
npb p, 1T6 (i) 
■jicb p, 145 (l) 

toe toe p, lie (27) 

T«B J, 462 (3) 

bDsna j, 112 (2i) 

)m J, 519 (2) 

ns'a p, 269 (l) 

tPXIQ P, 234 (8) 

fcTanann j, 485 (i8) 
tYfay nsrme j, i85 (7) 

"orbs EDb biTSH P, 402 (5) 

ma j. 110 (18) 
rmn nis e, 252 (6) 

nrna j, 111 (i9) 
bi3i?n l ra j, 120 (13) 

■p3 P, 114 (23) 

nbep)2 p, 310 (3) 

tjtfbtt J, 215 (1) 
"jib's J, 483 (2) 
D^b E. 371 (10) 
TOErb P, 194 

t t - : ' 

37 



tflBDtt J, 483 (1) 

rxrn j, 485 (16) 

»|t)3n J, 507 (2) 

'jn ssb j, 62 (io) 
nip^ p, 4, 5 

njpB P, 234 (9) 

rrarqn n:ps j, 509 (8) 

^??^ "rp^ J, 509 (8) 

■j»sn n:ptt j, 509 (8) 
rrptott e, 354 (i) 

TOtOtl E, 484 (7) 

oninsoipb p, 142 (4) 
Drrnnatttb p, 104 (13) 

tfj J, 185 (3) 

HW D»? R, 289 (2) 

ta^an (tana) j, 241 (5) 

fimj E, 252 (5) 

M E, 252 (2), 273 (2) 
^Ml "P5 E, 277 (10) 
TSH (-IDJ) J, 456 (4) 
yOJ E, 252 (1) ; J, 498 (1) 

rtfy&fn j, 503 (5) 

■TO J, 484(4), see 272 (6) 

tmwrts bs: j, 502 a) 

TT- - -T 7 V/ 

fe P, 177 (3) 
b? 12£3 J, 341 (2) 
■p-Jga J, 262 (6) 
Kfcj P, 192 (2) 

*rir:- p, 235 (ii) 
rvni jra p, 107 (16) 

DID J, 507 (4) 
™7^ "D? J, 40 (3) 

mm nay j, 305 (2) 



578 



INDEX 



?jTO J, 243 (24) 

^E TO E, 334 (4) 

''H ^19 J, 502 (4) 

Dbl3? (compounds of) P, 235 (17) 

TO J, 404 (8) 

mitf-b# E, 273 (14) 

^313-b? E, 530 (5) 

in^-by e, 253 (li) 

»ljj J3"b2 J, 530 (6) 

ntnsn ^S"b» j, 6i (3) 
n^?nn j, 62 (8) 
fins? j, 30 (?) 

D2? [self-same) P, 114 (24) 
*>lto ^S? J, 353 (3) 
TO J, 216 (9) 
1©» 3p? R, 289 (4) 
^?2n *>TO P, 192 (5) 

niton nto j, 30 (2) 
rto j, 29 (i) 

nil)? (inf.) E, 530 (3) 
^Eft ™? J, 245 (29) 
TO J, 321 (1) 

3 3tt3 E. 342 (3) 
Dltf £IS P, 320 (4) 
ttbj ("pS) J, 143 (1) 
pH2? 1HS E, 371 (9) 

nin ^sb j, 403 (7) 

ltoblfi J, 292 (2) 

bbS E, 519 (4) 

bbsnn e, 260 (3) 

D?2n J, 241 (9) 

ns mjs j, 40 (io) 

TOM (V?B) J, 118 (8) 
12S2 J, 242 (12) 



^JpB J, 270 (1) 

TlB5 P, 118 (8), 143 (1), 195 

nnii nis p, 105 (15) 

f 12 J, 341 (3) 
D^ahS J, 530 (4) 
nnS J, 486 (20) 

i"H2 E, 484 (9) 
in'S P, 119 (9) 
mbsn J, 306 (16) 
Db^P, 50(5) 

rrros j, 250 (2) 

np?E J, 241 (7) 

rra e, 484 (io) 

ninnffini iip j, 307 (20) 
d^b? bnp p, 333 (6) 

D^p (ft* mffrfe awro) P, 297 (9) 

rrna o^pn p, 107 (ie) 

iTO]? (of age) E, 355 (2) 
bp J, 119 (11) 

bbp J, i8i (6) 

1^3p P, 370 (2) 

n^p J, 508 (5) 

mm nub ^ip j, 326 (5) 

^OtD Dnn' SIJT E, 519 (3) 
n^lpb J, 242 (16) 

nipn j, 306 (15) 

fitfl (infin.) E, 518 (1) 

mm nsin j, 216 (io) 
rap nni e, 273 (io) 

nil (inf. of T£) E, 498 (3) 

naipb yr\ j, 353 (2) 

pnin E, 273 (13) 
331 J, 530 (4) 



INDEX 



579 



fc^D-l, t?Dn P, 176 (2) 
to»n, Ml P, 115 (26) 
3n J, 456 (5) 
W?3 3tt>? E, 272 (4) 
p!> Ji 62 (7) 

TH(Q J, 39 (2) 

liib UW E, 273 (12) 

rnten rnto j, 30 (2) 
^saatesi j, 194 (2) 

8:iD J, 306 (18) 

nsiz? j, 145 (i) 

pi? E, 483 (3) 

runs mnmrn (nrnij) j, 244 

t : - r -: - : • \ t t/ » 

(27) 

wron, nnt? p, 111 (19) 



npns n^©n j, 244 (26) ; e, 272 

"(3) 
W« DEI J, 41 (13) 

WQllft J, 293 (4) 

ba mi: p, 297 (io) 
bipa 2£E e, 272 (2) 
bipb yac J, 216 (8) 

*?n" T11& P, 296(5) 

nnsTC i, 353 (4) 

V$ti J, 241 (6) 

Ti% T^ p > 115 ( 25 > 
rrjbin p, 96 (i) 
najin j, 503 (6) 

n©in p, 297 (7) 

Dn J, 507 (3) 

oi^bffi bian E, 371 

D^EHn E, 371 (3) 



IV. The English Equivalents 



Abated, J, 119 (11) 

Abomination, J, 503 (6) 

Advanced in days, J, 245 (32) 

Afar off, E, 273 (13) 

Again, J, 40 (8) 

All flesh, P, 103 (11) 

All living things, P, 118 (7) 

All that went out of the gate of 

the city, P, 403 (11) 
Also, J, 243 (19) 
Am I in the place of God, E, 

530 (4) 
Angel (of Jehovah), J, 215 (1) 
Angry, to be, J, 245 (30) 
Aram-naharaim, J, 305 (3) 
Archer, E, 273 (10) 

Bear, to, P, 192 (2) 

Beast, P, 403 (9) 



Beast of the earth, P, 4, 30 (2) 
Beast of the field, J, 30 (2) 
Because ()V% R, 289 (3) 

Because (Ip?), R, 289 (4) 
Because of (bb}3), J, 185 (6) 

Because of Cnn£3), J, 118 (6) 
Before, J, 242 (13) 
Beforetime, E, 371 
Beget, J or P, 111 (20), 133, 234 

(10) 
Begin, J, 61 (2) 
Behold now, J, 185 (4) 
Bethuel the Aramaean, P, 320 (5) 
Bless one's self, R, 289 (5) 
Blessed of Jehovah, J, 326 (4) 
Blot out, J, 111 (19) 
Bondmaid, J, 353 (4) 
Bone and flesh, my, J, 353 (3) 



580 



INDEX 



Born to, were, J, 133 

Both . . . and, J, 503 (10) 

Bottle, E, 273 (8) 

Bow himself to the earth, J, 244 

(27) 
Bow the head and worship, J, 

307 (20) 
Break forth, J, 341 (3) 
Bring down (to Egypt), J, 451 (3) 
Brother's name, and his, J, 41 (13) 
Burn in one's eyes (anger), E, 491 

(2) 
Bash of the field, J, 30 (2) 

Call upon the name of Jehovah, 

J, 326 (5) 
Cast out, E, 272 (5) 
Chariots, J, 530 (4) 
Child, E, 272 (6) 
Children of Heth, P, 296 (3) 
Circumcised, every male of you 

be, P, 402 (5) 
Cleave unto, J, 403 (1) 
Collection, P, 4, 5 
Come (incitement), J, 456 (6) 
Comest, as thou, J, 143 (2) 
Concubine, J, 292 (2) 
Covenant, conclude or make, J, 

107 (16) ; E, 276 (2) 
Covenant, establish or ordain, P, 

107 (16) 
Create, P, 29 (1) 
Creep, creeping thing, P, 115 

(25, 26) 
Cry, J, 241 (7) 
Curse, J, 181 (6) 
Cursed art thou, J, 40 (6) 

Daughters of the Canaanites, 

J, 305 (4) 
Days of the years of the life, P, 

311 (6) 
Destroy, P, 111 (19) 
Divide, P, 4, 5 



Door, J, 486 (20) 
Dream, E, 260 (4) 
Dwell, P, 192 (3) 

Eating, P, 112 (21) 

Elder, E, 355 (2) 

End, J, 508 (5) 

Enemy, J, 306 (18) 

Eternity (compounds of), P, 235 

(17) 
Every living thing, J, 118 (7) 

Exceedingly Oto "jfctt), P,116 

(27) 
Exceedingly O'Stt *&), E, 334 

(4) 
Except, E, 276 (4) 
Expire, P, 110 (18) 

Fail, J, 507 (3) 

Fair, J, 61 (5) 

Fair of form and fair to look 

upon, E, 355 (3) 
Fair to look upon, J, 306 (13) 
Families, according to their, P, 

104 (13), 142 (4) 
Families of the earth, all the, J, 

181 (4) 
Far be it, J, 241 (8) 
Father of, J, 137 
Fear of Isaac, E, 371 (9) 
Fell on his neck, J, 502 (1) 
Field, J, 39 (2) 
Find favor, J, 62 (10) 
First-born, J, 250 (1) 
Fodder, J, 483 (1) 
Food (brftf), J, 485 (12) 
Food (rfjDS), P, 112 (21) 
Forasmuch as, J, 456 (8) 
Form, to, J, 29 (1) 
For therefore, J, 243 (18) 
For the sake of, J, 242 (11) 
Found, J, 507 (2) 
Friend, J, 456 (5) 



INDEX 



581 



From the time that, J, 462 (3) 
Fruitful, be, and multiply, P, 
105 (15) 

Gather, P,' 176 (2) 

Gathered unto his people, P, 310 

(5) 
Gathering together, P, 4, 5 
Generations, P, 96 (1) 
Generations, throughout their, 

P, 236 (19) 
Get, P, 176 (2) 
Get possessions, P, 402 (4) 
Getting, P, 370 (2) 
Give up the ghost, P, 310 (4) 
God was with him, E, 271 (1) 
Goods, P, 176 (2) 
Go to the right, the left, J, 194 (2) 
Grain, E, 485 (12) 
Grieved, to be, J, 62 (8) 
Grievous in the eyes, E, 272 (4) 
Ground, J, 341 (4) 
Ground, on the face of the, J, 

61(3) 
Grow, E, 519 (5) 

Hearken to the voice of, J, 216 

(8) ; E, 272 (2) 
Heart, E, 260 (2) 
Heart, at or unto his, J, 118 (5) 
Heavy, J, 485 (14) 
Herb of the field, J, 30 (2) 
Here, E, 276 (5) 
Him also, to, J, 137 
Horsemen, J, 530 (4) 
Horses, J, 507 (4) 
House, J, 333 (4) 
Hundred, P, 269 (1) 

Image, P, 50 (5) 
Imagination, J, 62 (6) 
In order that, E, 276 (3) 
Israel, J, 450 (1) 
It may be, J, 217 (12) 



Jacob, E, 450 (1) 
Journey, to, J, 498 (1) 

Keep alive, J, 120 (12) 
Kind (species), P, 114 (23) 
Kindness and truth, J, 305 (6) 
Know (euphemism), J, 306 (14) 

Laban the Aramaean, E, 371 (4) 

Lad, J, 484 (4) 

Land of Canaan, P, 177 (4) 

Land of Egypt, P, 509 (1) 

Land of Goshen, J, 509 (1) 

Light, a (in the ark), P, 119 (9) 

Light upon, to, E, 342 (3) 

Likeness, P, 4 

Lip (language), J, 145 (1) 

Little, a, J, 485 (16) 

Living substance, J, 119 (10) 

Lodging-place, J, 483 (2) 

Long for, P, 402 (3) 

Look, J, 241 (5) 

Look forth, J, 241 (6) 

Lord, my OflX), J, 241 (4) 

Machpelah, P, 296 (4) 
Made sure, P, 297 (9) 
Maid-servant, E, 259 (1) 
Make, J, 29 (1) 
Make a nation, E, 273 (12) 
Make an end, J, 333 (2) 
Make himself known, E, 489 
Make prosperous, J, 306 (16) 
Male and female, P, 103 (12) 
Male and his female, J, 117 (3) 
Man, the, J, 61 (4), 484 (6) 
Man, the lord of the land, E, 484 

(6) 
Meet, to, J, 242 (16) 
Multiply greatly, J, 216 (10) 

Name, and her, J, 293 (4) 
Name shall be called on them, 
E, 519 (3) 



582 



INDEX 



Nations of the earth, all the, J, 
243 (25) 

Not to be numbered for multi- 
tude, J, 217 (11) 

Not to, J, 242 (14) 

Nourished, E, 506 (2), 530 (2) 

Oath, J, 326 (3) 

Offspring and posterity, E, 277 

(10) 
On account of, E, 273 (14) 
Only (*J8), E, 333 (1) 
Only (pn), J, 62 (7) 
Only (son), E, 287 (6) 
Open the mouth, J, 40 (10) 
Overspread, was, J, 118 (8) 

Paddan-aram, P, 320 (4) 
Parts, J, 509 (9) 
Peradventure, J, 306 (8) 
Perpetuity (compounds of), P, 

235 (17) 
Person, P, 177 (3) 
Possession, P, 233 (7) 
Possession of cattle, J, 509 (8) 
Possession of flocks, J, 509 (8) 
Possession of herds, J, 509 (8) 
Possess the gate, J, 306 (19) 
Pray, to, E, 260 (3) 
Pray thee, I, J, 185 (3) 
Presented, J, 503 (7) 
Press, to, J, 242 (12) 
Prevailed, E, 506 (3) 
Prince, P, 235 (11) 
Prison, J, 484 (7) 
Provision, E, 484 (9) 
Purchase, P, 234 (9) 

Recognize, J, 456 (4) 
Kef rain himself, J, 489 
Refused, J, 519 (2) 
Remember, E, 484 (11) 
Reprove, E, 276 (7) 



Restrain, J, 216 (9) 

Rise up early in the morning, J, 

244 (26) ; E, 272 (3) 
Run to meet, J, 353 (2) 

Sack, J, 483 (3) 

Saith Jehovah, R, 289 (2) 

Say concerning, E, 262 (5) 

Seed with him, P, 498 (2) 

Self-same, P, 114 (24) 

Send good speed, J, 306 (15) 

Servant of Jehovah, J, 305 (2) 

She also, J, 292 (3) 

Shoot, to, E, 273 (9; 

Show kindness, J, 245 (29) 

So did he, P, 105 (14) 

Sojourner, P, 297 (7) 

Sojournings, P, 234 (8) 

Sorrow, J, 30 (7) 

Souls, P, 177 (3) 

Speak in his heart, J, 306 (17) 

Speak in the ears of, J, 529 (2) 

Spent, to be, J, 507 (3) 

Spread abroad, J, 341 (3) 

Stood on or over, J, 341 (2) 

Stranger, P, 235 (12) 

Subdue, P, 4 

Substance, P, 176 (2) 

Swarm, swarming things, P, 115 

(25) 
Swear by myself, R, 288 (1) 

Teraphim, E, 371 (3) 

That soul shall be cut off, P, 236 

(20) 
Therefore was called, J, 530 (6) 
This time, J, 241 (9) 
Thou and thy seed after thee, P, 

109 (17) 
Thou art yet alive, J, 502 (4) 
Thought, E, 519 (4) 
Thy servant, J, 243 (24) 
Till the ground, J, 40 (3) 



INDEX 



583 



Times, E, 371 (10) 

Toil, J, 30 (7) 

Tongue (language), P, 145 (1) 

Took, P, 176 (1) 

Treated well, J, 185 (2) 

Trouble, to, J, 404 (8) 

Tunic, E, 451 (2) 

Tunic, long, J, 451 (2) 

Upon the knees of, E, 530 (5) 
Urge, J, 242 (12) 

Visit, J, 270 (1) 

Wages, E, 354 (1) 

Ward, E, 484 (7) 

Waters of the flood, J, 120 (13) 



What is this that thou hast done, 

J, 185 (7) 
Wherefore, J, 243 (17) 
Which belong to, J, 353 (1) 
Which ought not to be done, J, 

403 (5) 
Wife (concubine), P, 214 (5) 
Wild beast, P, 113 (22) 
Window (in the ark), J, 119 (9) 
With the edge of the sword, J, 

403 (7) 

Years of the life of, P, 296 (5) 
You and your seed after you, P, 

109 (17) 
Younger (rVTO2), J, 250 (2) 
Younger (Hipp), E, 355 (2) 
Youth, J, 503~ (5) 



838 



* 




■<p 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. I 
B Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

i tUm — * » r>„*„- luno 90(15 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
\D * ^ TV >■ ^?Hf9 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

fi- C ^v ^^OJ/^, Treatment Date: June 2005 

5 * /^ * * o , .% * 9 ' x * preservationTechnologies 

X^/lA' *>* ^ A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 



PreservationTecl 

^ fX^^/lA' *>* c5 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER I 

*" <$\M./fk ° *Ks C? in Thomson Park Drive 
















%*" 






</ % 



V 



A 



->- 






















♦*v 






.0- 









V s 



K* A •> 










